Best camera for low light social photography - to replace / supplement M9??
- Thread starter SimonPJ
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 128
- Views 16K
Black
Photographer.
Sony RX1. Unobtrusive. Leaf shutter (therefore silent). Full frame. f/2 Zeiss lens. Sees. In. The. Dark.
That is all.
That is all.
Last edited:
aeturnum
Established
My current plan is, once the Sony A7 can be rented, to try my RF lenses on it. Focus speed isn't an issue, and its low light performance is supposedly quite strong.
uhoh7
Veteran
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Jon, not to be pedantic and to make sure the OP can make a proper decision, if your flickr commentary is correct - iso640 + 2/3 stop, pushed 3.1 in post - and ignoring the use of shado/highlight sliders, this is more like iso3200 or 3500.
640 with +2/3 stop of light is equivalent to 400, plus 3 stops puch gives 3200. The scene also appears fairly low contrast, which helps as there's no need to lift noisy shadows.
I agree that the M9 is better than its reputation, but the only iso 8,000 plus shots I've kept are in noisy mono and include my kids🙂
Great picture by the way. Really like it and the colours look just like the m9.
Mike
Pablito
coco frío
More than double the price of the X100s, and no viewfinder unless you pay even more and stick it in the hot shoe.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Noctilux with M9 on full manual should do the trick.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
True enough but you're limited to 35mm FOV. Get any dust in it your done.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Interesting question, Simon, and lots of interesting answers so far. In my experience, you've pretty much answered your own question with your last statement. Autofocus is really trick... except when it can't autofocus. Which it can't do reliably in low light. And all of the current high-iso wonders all have autofocus, or require you to use focus peaking or some other techno-wizardry to get the thing to focus... and then it's often tough to get it to focus where YOU want it to in low light, which IS of course where the Ms shine.
And despite the claims to the contrary, none of the autofocus wonders are as consistent as you are at focusing your M, nor do they understand DOF the way you do. And remember that with your f/1.4, you're going to be about 3 stops faster than any other camera's kit lens zoom, a pretty significant jump in effective ISO.
You are comfortable using the M9 under the conditions which you shoot regularly, and it sounds to me like you've got it wired. Knowing your gear and how it responds in a given situation is better than a ton of new (and unknown-to-you) technology.
Black
Photographer.
But less than the price of the M9 and I'd wager that the support for it will be there long after Leica ditch support for the M9 like they did with the M8.
It also depends on whether you think the viewfinder is more important than the full frame sensor. I don't, as I believe the resultant image is the most important factor when choosing a camera. FF sensor effects this, a lack of viewfinder does not.
And just to hammer the point home, you can bag a viewfinder (one the best EVFs and optional, third party OVFs) for the RX1 - you can't pick up a FF sensor for the X100S.
Last edited:
Fraser
Well-known
5000iso and a big crop.
Black
Photographer.
Never had a camera with a fixed lens and had dust "get in".
Tejasican
Well-known
Only if the user is right eye dominant. My wife and I, right and left handed respectively, are both left eye dominant and our faces would thus be obscured. In the poll here asking about which eye people use in the viewfinder currently 44.52% use the left eye.
As an aside, it also makes using the AF lock button on most cameras a real pain to operate. Kudos to the Fuji X-line on that one.
cosmonaut
Well-known
Reviews I have read indicates it doesn't focus well in low light. The image quality in low light will be probably as good as can be bought.
cosmonaut
Well-known
But by the time you buy an M9 and three good lenses you will be set back a whole lot of money.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Thanks, Mike. I've always been too optimistic! Jon
rolfe
Well-known
Canon EOS-M with 22mm lens. It has been discontinued but still available on Amazon.
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
I have... it's the RX1. It's not weather sealed. Just going to the beach one day I felt a piece of grain get under one of the buttons. I asked around on this and someone showed some pics (on another forum) of one that was very dirty.
furcafe
Veteran
You've received many good recommendations in this thread, but I would add the Fuji X-Pro1 w/18/2 or the new 23/1.4 to the list. The low-light AF is not perfect, certainly not as snappy as a pro/am dSLR, & probably lags a bit behind the X100s (haven't tried 1 to compare), but certainly useable & an improvement in the high ISO department compared w/the M9. Not sure if you ever used the old Kyocera Contax G2, but the X100/X100s/X-Pro1 operate a bit like them (only w/much better viewfinders & extra digital functionality). Of course, you also have the option of switching to the EVF for a more SLR-like focusing/framing experience.
I think much depends on what you can get along with. I will always prefer a true optical RF, so have the M 240, but the X-Pro1 continues to serve as a worthy backup system when I don't want to schlep the D700 (&/or don't need all the whizz-bang dSLR features).
I think much depends on what you can get along with. I will always prefer a true optical RF, so have the M 240, but the X-Pro1 continues to serve as a worthy backup system when I don't want to schlep the D700 (&/or don't need all the whizz-bang dSLR features).
2WK
Rangefinder User
+1 on the Xpro. With the focusing set to "C"ontinuous I find the 18mm & 35mm focus quite well in low light.
Similar threads
