Best camera for low light social photography - to replace / supplement M9??

Sony RX1. Unobtrusive. Leaf shutter (therefore silent). Full frame. f/2 Zeiss lens. Sees. In. The. Dark.

That is all.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
noimmunity said:
I've shown this in another thread


ISO8750 on the M-E by areality4all, on Flickr
Click to expand...

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
 
Black said:
Sony RX1. Unobtrusive. Leaf shutter (therefore silent). Full frame. f/2 Zeiss lens. Sees. In. The. Dark.

That is all.
Click to expand...

More than double the price of the X100s, and no viewfinder unless you pay even more and stick it in the hot shoe.
 
SimonPJ said:
So, I've been wondering whether there are any interesting alternatives to try that would work better - or at least, differently - in these low light social situations.

I know there are plenty of cameras that can do a bit - maybe quite a bit - better than the M9 in low light.

But I know also that lots of them have problems focusing in low light.

Cheers,

Simon
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pablito said:
More than double the price of the X100s, and no viewfinder unless you pay even more and stick it in the hot shoe.
Click to expand...

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:
SimonPJ said:
This is the rangefinder's trump card. The fact that you don't totally lose eye contact, and your face isn't obscured.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I'm curious - Why would the Sony A7 struggle in low light? I haven't seen any thorough reviews of that camera yet. Is there something about the Sony sensor that makes it struggle?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Duane Pandorf said:
You can push the Leica M9 two stops in LR shooting at ISO640. So I too use the 35 Lux at a half stop above f/1.4 as I have the pre-ASPH version so keep from getting lens flare. So far I'm happy with those results. See no need to have another kit.
Click to expand...

But by the time you buy an M9 and three good lenses you will be set back a whole lot of money.
 
sojournerphoto said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mike. I've always been too optimistic! Jon
 
Black said:
Never had a camera with a fixed lens and had dust "get in".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).

SimonPJ said:
In the 25 plus years that I've been using Leicas one of my main uses for them has been documenting social or work events that I'm participating in - usually when I'm sitting amongst the people I'm photographing, and often in very poor light because it's indoors, or late in the day. I know this is a familiar situation for many on RFF.

Until the M8, for me this usually meant a film M loaded with 800 ISO colour neg film, and more often than not a 35 'Lux wide open, or nearly so, shot at 1/30 or even 1/15. This can work fine - as long as you're able to juggle shallow depth of field and shoot when your subjects aren't getting too animated and moving around too much!

The M8 wasn't too much of a step up from film M's in handling these situations - and though the M9 is better, it's still in the same ballpark when it comes to dealing with real low light. You're having to really keep on your toes to make shallow depth of field and low shutter speeds work.

So, I've been wondering whether there are any interesting alternatives to try that would work better - or at least, differently - in these low light social situations.

I know there are plenty of cameras that can do a bit - maybe quite a bit - better than the M9 in low light.

But I know also that lots of them have problems focusing in low light.

So, if I want to try something that might be an interesting alternative to the M9 for this kind of photography, what should I try?

It needs to have significantly better high ISO performance than the M9 to open up the possibility of smaller apertures and faster shutter speeds.

It needs to be able to focus reliably and quickly on people's faces -preferably their eyes - in challengingly low light (all M's do this exceptionally well).

It needs to allow a good view of the subject for quick and responsive composition.

And it needs to be unobtrusive, quiet and easy to hold and pack - to make it easy to keep participating in the social situation.

So, what would this be? Fuji x100s? Any DSLR's? It always seems to me that there isn't anything out there which really nails all of the above features to make it an alternative to the M9. But I'd love to hear that I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Simon
Click to expand...
 
+1 on the Xpro. With the focusing set to "C"ontinuous I find the 18mm & 35mm focus quite well in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom