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

What's intrusive is making a lot of lousy blown shots with any camera.

I would go with either a new iPhone 5s... or a real sports-journalism camera built for high ISO and superior low light AF like a Nikon D3s with a 50/1.4. There aren't any shortcuts and you have to man up. A Fuji X won't be any better than a Sony or m4/3, the cheap 6D or 5D3 or D610 aren't going to focus worth a fart in the wind... so trading sideways makes no sense.

Everything else is just a tweak over what you've already got. You need an extra four stops and progressional auto-focusing, not the slight gain of maybe 1.5 stops and passive AF. All of these new compact cameras are for built for sunny days and casual shooting so their cheap AF and stopping down create the illusion that they work. Notice how the esteemed camera reviewers gloss over the fact that the darn things can't focus worth a hoot until the next version of the camera comes out and then they admit the truth, that the prior version that they gushed all over didn't really get very many photos in focus.

It's really bizarre, all the megapixels in the world don't matter if they aren't in focus but the camera manufacturers love pushing higher pixel counts and other "features" while "forgetting" to do anything about focusing ability.
 
I have the X100 exactly for this type of scenerios. Works great up till ISO3200. The only problems are slow auto focusing and unusable manual focusing.
 
A7r with cv 21/1.8 35/1.2 55/1.1 is pretty spectacular.

Shutter is like 5D, which is not quiet :(

The cheaper A7 is also very good with the high speed M's noted above, and has a much quieter shutter, and is a bit better than R in iso.

Overall both have outstanding iso performance.
 
X100 or X100s; or else an X10 or X20. All very low noise with excellent low light performance, small size, and easy handling.
 
uhoh7 said:
A7r with cv 21/1.8 35/1.2 55/1.1 is pretty spectacular.

Shutter is like 5D, which is not quiet :(

The cheaper A7 is also very good with the high speed M's noted above, and has a much quieter shutter, and is a bit better than R in iso.

Overall both have outstanding iso performance.
Click to expand...

How would you know this other than from internet chatter? And how would the focus accuracy and speed compare to a real camera? One that actually has been used?
 
Timmyjoe said:
I'd go with a Monochrom. Have heard wonderful things about its low light capabilities, and you already have all the lenses for it.

As long as you can live with Black & White.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

This is what I use for club and act work. My flickr account has examples, most shot at iso 5000. Astounding print quality, astounding price.


20131005-008-Web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
 
Frank Petronio said:
How would you know this other than from internet chatter? And how would the focus accuracy and speed compare to a real camera? One that actually has been used?
Click to expand...

"a real camera" ?

Somehow I think it's not worth the effort to source the statement for you Frank. What I said is true: believe or not, as you choose.

As to focus accuracy, it's well documented that MF with the Sony nex and A7s is excellent--best in industry-- if you know how to use it. Sure RF will be faster when you first use the sony--but it's not far off within a hour or so of practice.

For AF in low light with faster glass the sony is in a class by it self because of it's ability to "pick an eye".

You can look at Steve Huff's discussion of the camera and his work with the OTUS.
 
uhoh7 said:
"a real camera" ?

Somehow I think it's not worth the effort to source the statement for you Frank. What I said is true: believe or not, as you choose.

As to focus accuracy, it's well documented that MF with the Sony nex and A7s is excellent--best in industry-- if you know how to use it. Sure RF will be faster when you first use the sony--but it's not far off within a hour or so of practice.

For AF in low light with faster glass the sony is in a class by it self because of it's ability to "pick an eye".

You can look at Steve Huff's discussion of the camera and his work with the OTUS.
Click to expand...

So you rather take the word of a blogger who makes his living from promoting/selling the cameras he is reviewing than speaking from real world experience with cameras that hardly anyone has yet?

I don't care about the latest and greatest but a quick search reveals that DP Review's "Shooting Review" has one its testers saying that he didn't think any of his Sony A7 shots were in focus. Perhaps the DP Review testers aren't experienced enough to grasp the greatness of the magical Sony?

Maybe the Sony A7 series will be great but it seems premature to make any assumptions, much less purchases based on press release hype. But based on actual experience with different auto-focus systems, I'd expect a D3s to run circles around a P&S compact.
 
Let's let the camera do the talking:

A7r with the superb and very small 35/2.8 zeiss native prime

DSC00178 by hsfc, on Flickr

Check out this photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hsfc/

The camera is now out in Korea and japan.

If you go to flickr and search A7r, then sort by recent, you'll see new samples coming in nearly every minute.

Make up your own mind.

As to Huff: Gandy respects him. That's good enough for me.
 
Is there a camera or lens that Steve Huff has ever panned? Just askin'. You want objectivity in a blogger who depends on manufacturer goodwill? About as easy as finding virtue in a massage parlor.

@uhoh - all due respect and not to take sides, but the OP is interested in event-type shooting. your subjects, well, aren't especially mobile, aren't tough to focus, don't present difficult lighting. what's the point of posting fixed subject A7r images at web-size in this regard?
 
No doubt those quick moving, gesturing antiques were no match for the manual focusing ;-p

Just to ease off a bit, I'm not questioning any of these cameras' image quality and I am sure the Sony A7r is top-notch in that regard. But none of the things I have read have made much mention of speed or accuracy of focus and most of these "reviewers" tend to post pictures of simple, static subjects so you don't get an idea of how it is with spontaneous photography of active, living things. Seeing a web-sized jpg isn't going to ever be a good measure of quality.

My hunch is that a lot of the newer compact cameras will do an OK job with the low-light social photography but all things considered it may well be a wash compared to using a M9 skillfully (anticipating focus being the key). To get something clearly superior to the M9 requires a big jump... gaining one stop extra performance is nice but is it really worth the effort and cost? Gaining 3-4 stops gets significant, it actually changes the way you'd approach photography.

As for Huff, he works hard at blogging and seems like a nice guy. So does Ken Rockwell and the others. More power to them, glad they can do it. But I sure wouldn't rely on their advice given how exuberant they are about so many cameras... I think they love cameras a lot more than making photos. If you read between the lines and retain a measure of healthy skepticism then they can help you make an informed decision.

Watch a good wedding photographer. Maybe they'll shoot with a Leica or Fuji or something similar for well-lit daytime shots but once the lights go down, out come the big DSLRs and flashes.

And for that matter, the OP is at the threshold where you need to use flash to get the picture... or suffer a lot of misses, blurs, and bloopers.
 
Frank Petronio said:
Finally, watch a good wedding photographer. Maybe they'll shoot with a Leica or Fuji or something similar for well-lit daytime shots but once the lights go down, out come the big DSLRs and flashes.
Click to expand...

Exactly - and pretty much the same for PJ's and some documentarians, I'd say.
 
Frank Petronio said:
Watch a good wedding photographer. Maybe they'll shoot with a Leica or Fuji or something similar for well-lit daytime shots but once the lights go down, out come the big DSLRs and flashes.

And for that matter, the OP is at the threshold where you need to use flash to get the picture... or suffer a lot of misses, blurs, and bloopers.
Click to expand...

I noticed, Frank, that you qualified your statement here with "good" wedding photographer, but I shot weddings for years with the Olympus E1 and slow zooms... and yep, I used a flash. Nothing wrong with using a flash if you know how to make it look like natural light.

I shoot Leicas now primarily for the look I get with large aperture primes, and horror of horrors... sometimes I STILL use flash!!! A GOOD wedding photographer's sense of timing is still what gets the shots, not 10 frames/sec and spray and pray that I see so often with the new crop of folks who do weddings. I still do a wedding and reception with about 300 exposures. I still shoot the way I shot film... although that's still about twice as many as I'd shoot when I was shooting VPS.

But then again... maybe I'm not that good. :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure you're excellent! But my point was simply that for the OP, it was probably time to break out the flash as you and I have done.
 
Some friends came around with their new baby yesterday and after having afternoon coffee with them and taking a few shots of the baby, I started thinking of this thread. Shooting a baby inside with no flash? Out came the dedicated 'baby / puppy' set up, a 7D with the 50/1.8 @ 2500 iso and auto focus. I banged out a couple shots then changed to the OMD with 50/1.4 and manual focus @ 1600 iso. I like it's colour and pixel sharpness much more than the Canon. Manual focus is a challenge, though not impossible.

Lastly out came the M4. I was halfway through a roll of Delta 100 so that had to do with the vc 50/1.5 and of course, manual focussing. But the results as usual, impressed me way more than the high iso digital. Babies never stay still but focus can be anticipated with practice.

Most of the time I would rather take some Delta 400 (sometime pushed to 1600), the M4 and a fast 50. That is my 'low light social camera'. Especially when 'social' means enjoyment and for me and that's shooting film.

So perhaps in your case the M9 and a fast lens would be worth persevering with if you enjoy the RF experience?

p54644427.jpg


OMD 1600 iso

p659671493.jpg


p928042018.jpg


M4 Delta 100
 
The E-M1 with a fast prime (I'm using the Panasonic 25mm 1.4) is pretty incredible. I have yet to use a flash with it. Useable hand held images at an EV of 0 (ISO 3200, F1.4, 1/15).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom