Kupepe
Member
Hello
I am using a film camera for my shooting when there is light.
Lately, I discovered that street photography during night can be really thrilling. I am using a Ricoh grd2 from 2007. Unfortunately to have any results I need to use flash for getting any decent results. I am using digital since it is safer to use at night due to higher iso capabilities.
Flash can have interesting results but some times you don’t want to ruin the lights that create a more subtle effect than the edgy style of flash.
How does x100f work at night without using flash?
Its f2 lens is certainly better than the Ricoh gr2 lens that I would think as a contender.
Any input?
I am using a film camera for my shooting when there is light.
Lately, I discovered that street photography during night can be really thrilling. I am using a Ricoh grd2 from 2007. Unfortunately to have any results I need to use flash for getting any decent results. I am using digital since it is safer to use at night due to higher iso capabilities.
Flash can have interesting results but some times you don’t want to ruin the lights that create a more subtle effect than the edgy style of flash.
How does x100f work at night without using flash?
Its f2 lens is certainly better than the Ricoh gr2 lens that I would think as a contender.
Any input?
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Delta 3200 and the recently released Tmax 3200 are still great options for film street at night.
I've shot a ton of delta 3200 at night and can fully recommend it.
I did shoot a fair bit of low light with the X100t when I had it and I can say that at 3200 the files are fairly workable.
phone edit*
I've shot a ton of delta 3200 at night and can fully recommend it.
I did shoot a fair bit of low light with the X100t when I had it and I can say that at 3200 the files are fairly workable.
phone edit*
Well, I find you can use ISO 6400 and the autofocus works well down to about -2EV. I think it is pretty good.
Here's one I made at night with the X100F...
Here's one I made at night with the X100F...
Kupepe
Member
Thank you all ... pretty nice samples. I got it now what it can do.
Many thanx
Many thanx
Dogman
Veteran
Not really. While the Fuji lens is a stop faster, optically, the Ricoh GRII lens is amazing. The Fuji lens is merely very good to excellent.
Wouter2
Established
I would recommend the Coolpix A or Ricoh GR with aps-c sensors. Great in low light and amazing colours.
The GR does have the better lens when it comes to the internet’s favorite (or second behind bokeh) lens attribute ... sharpness. However, neither the GR or the Coolpix A can focus fast in low light. The X100F is the superior camera at night at this point. The other two are effectively 5 years old.
jamesmck
Established
That is a superb photo, jsrockit!
ABrosig
Well-known
Plus, I find the Fuji small/light enough that handholding at slower shutter speeds is a snap
Thank you sir.
willie_901
Veteran
To maximize the X100F's low-light performance:
With raw files, highlight region overexposure is better than underexposure for the rest of the scene. When ambient light levels are low, the main noise source is photon (a.k.a. shot) noise. There is nothing we can do to minimize photon noise except increase exposure (shutter time and aperture). I work in manual exposure mode and auto-bracket three aperture exposures. Most often I use 0, +1/3 and -1/3 steps. In post production I keep the raw file that retains important highlight region detail and delete the other two.
Withe raw files, the meter reading is not particularly useful in low light. I typically use ISO 800 and just set the shutter speed and aperture as needed. A 3 to 4 stop global brightness push in post-production often delivers a useful rendering. The primary disadvantage is in-camera image review becomes impractical.
In low light levels, increasing ISO only increases global image brightness after the shutter closes. This can not increase exposure so it will not minimize photon noise levels. However increasing ISO is required if you prefer in-camera JPEGs.
The shutter speed for the X-series cameras may need to be at lest a half stop faster than you use for film.
I like to use the OVF in low light.
I like to use f 2.8 as the minimum aperture number for street work in low light.
For extreme conditions I render the raw files in B&W. The photon noise can be rendered to simulate film grain.
I never uses in-camera JPEGs, so I don't have experience with those.
- use raw files
- use ISO 800 or higher, but never below 800
- intentionally use a shutter speed and, or aperture that overexposes unimportant highlight regions; usually point-light sources
- during post-production let shadow regions be shadows; avoid the temptation to excessively push shadow-region brightness.
With raw files, highlight region overexposure is better than underexposure for the rest of the scene. When ambient light levels are low, the main noise source is photon (a.k.a. shot) noise. There is nothing we can do to minimize photon noise except increase exposure (shutter time and aperture). I work in manual exposure mode and auto-bracket three aperture exposures. Most often I use 0, +1/3 and -1/3 steps. In post production I keep the raw file that retains important highlight region detail and delete the other two.
Withe raw files, the meter reading is not particularly useful in low light. I typically use ISO 800 and just set the shutter speed and aperture as needed. A 3 to 4 stop global brightness push in post-production often delivers a useful rendering. The primary disadvantage is in-camera image review becomes impractical.
In low light levels, increasing ISO only increases global image brightness after the shutter closes. This can not increase exposure so it will not minimize photon noise levels. However increasing ISO is required if you prefer in-camera JPEGs.
The shutter speed for the X-series cameras may need to be at lest a half stop faster than you use for film.
I like to use the OVF in low light.
I like to use f 2.8 as the minimum aperture number for street work in low light.
For extreme conditions I render the raw files in B&W. The photon noise can be rendered to simulate film grain.
I never uses in-camera JPEGs, so I don't have experience with those.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Ah, another internet favorite - camera needs to be new.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Yeah. People often love my low light shots I made with a vintage 2005 Nikon D2HS. Surely a good photo can't be made with only 4MP coming out of a camera a decade old.
Phil Forrest
css9450
Veteran
On the other hand, I often do VERY long exposures (typically four minutes but I have done some for 15 or more minutes) and there is a world of improvements between my 2006-era D80 and my newer cameras. With the D80, crystal-clear night skies suddenly get a greenish glow as if the Northern Lights are visible.
But that's a different type of situation than the OP is asking about.
But that's a different type of situation than the OP is asking about.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Yeah. People often love my low light shots I made with a vintage 2005 Nikon D2HS. Surely a good photo can't be made with only 4MP coming out of a camera a decade old.
Phil Forrest
I didn't struggle with 2005 Canon 5D and no problems with 2008 500D for night photography.
In terms of new, I'd rather get camera with inbody stabilization and fast prime. Where are new MFT cameras with good ISO6400 and stabilization (not always expensive) and fast and wide lenses like Lux 15 1.7 (not Leica M priced
). Nikon A has good MF implementation and GRII has one button focus preset.
This makes difference in any light. But if you have dark scene with no contrast to detect, no AF itself is going to help. AF assist beam will.
I did not say that. My point is that people will say the GR's lens is better and they always mean sharper. Well, both are sharp enough for most people's photography. I would imagine attributes such as lens speed and focal length are better determining factors regarding if a lens is better suited for a particular person than pure sharpness (especially when both are good enough). He asked about one new camera and one 5 year old model. Whether we like it or not, a brand new digital camera will show progress vs. a 5 year old camera in several key areas that help at night. This does not mean older cameras cannot do something. He asked specifically about the GR vs. the X100F. I've used both... he didn't ask about the Nikon D2HS or the Canon Rebel.
Despite what you and Phil said, I did not say the GR (or older cameras) cannot make a photo at night. I just think the X100F will make it easier on you in many situations ... many hand held situations. Yes, the AF works down to -2EV. WORKS WELL. WORKS FAST. IS reliable.
Have either of you used this camera (or the GR) or are you just assuming you know better than those who have?
Yeah. People often love my low light shots I made with a vintage 2005 Nikon D2HS. Surely a good photo can't be made with only 4MP coming out of a camera a decade old.
Phil Forrest
Yeah, Phil... that's exactly what I said.
The OP specifically asked about two cameras (both of which I have used extensively).
You have repeatedly told us about your low standards in photography though...
In terms of new, I'd rather get camera with inbody stabilization and fast prime. Where are new MFT cameras with good ISO6400 and stabilization (not always expensive) and fast and wide lenses like Lux 15 1.7 (not Leica M priced
Which m43 body preforms well up to 6400 with stabilization? Stabilization isn't great in all situations... mostly situations were a monopod or tripod would work.
The Coolpix A does not have great AF even in regular light. Also, the snap focus of the GR works ok when you don't have the lens wide open... at F2.8 on an APSC sensor, you are either going to be in focus or not. You will miss an awful lot using this method at night.
True, but I quoted a value of -2EV and that's pretty low. Not many scenes that lack contrast past this level are going to come up. If they do, all cameras will struggle... even manual focus.
The bottom line is that you have not used the cameras you are talking about and you are doing the OP a disservice by making assumptions.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You are talking about me having low standards? Owning camera in question doesn't mean using it to prove something. Your image proves nothing about fast AF in -2EV.
Here is 2005 5D at night.
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1...o/AF1QipPB4ejxuTk6Y_v8ifE-pmg5aRsAJOWmCRFRt2A
And 500D from 2008, at night.
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1...o/AF1QipN9kk6q-_A6WQ8bxRJalNB7GCHcnem9UQiL6cU
Yes, where are MFT with fine IS0 6400 and 5-axis image stabilization. Since 2016. What tripod has to do with street photography? Handheld with 1/15 and IS does. And modern cameras with IS will recognize which axis to stabilize once camera in the pan mode. Do you know what pan mode is in street photogaphy?
And CoolPic A is not slow camera for the street. My buddy in Moscow does it with this camera and does it great, not just like you show us here. He even does it with some old MFT and MF Oly 15mm pancake. Boris Kireev. I suggest to learn about him, before lecturing here about Coolpix A AF and street photography.
We just had GRII, CoolPix A talk about street photography with him and other good folks I know. Here is one who used old Ricoh camera for trip to India. In the real night:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115439373@N02/31573929834/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115439373@N02/32345182446/in/dateposted/
BTW, OP has 50 1.4 lens, with films BLKRCAT has mentioned and with Kodak Ultramax 400 @800, he'll be just fine
Here is 2005 5D at night.
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1...o/AF1QipPB4ejxuTk6Y_v8ifE-pmg5aRsAJOWmCRFRt2A
And 500D from 2008, at night.
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1...o/AF1QipN9kk6q-_A6WQ8bxRJalNB7GCHcnem9UQiL6cU
Yes, where are MFT with fine IS0 6400 and 5-axis image stabilization. Since 2016. What tripod has to do with street photography? Handheld with 1/15 and IS does. And modern cameras with IS will recognize which axis to stabilize once camera in the pan mode. Do you know what pan mode is in street photogaphy?
And CoolPic A is not slow camera for the street. My buddy in Moscow does it with this camera and does it great, not just like you show us here. He even does it with some old MFT and MF Oly 15mm pancake. Boris Kireev. I suggest to learn about him, before lecturing here about Coolpix A AF and street photography.
We just had GRII, CoolPix A talk about street photography with him and other good folks I know. Here is one who used old Ricoh camera for trip to India. In the real night:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115439373@N02/31573929834/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115439373@N02/32345182446/in/dateposted/
BTW, OP has 50 1.4 lens, with films BLKRCAT has mentioned and with Kodak Ultramax 400 @800, he'll be just fine
Dogman
Veteran
"Old" cameras. There seems to be a lot of people on RFF using old cameras--old Leicas, old Contaxes (is that the right spelling?), old view cameras and old Rolleis (again, spelling?). This seems to be the place for "old" technology (and old farts like me as well).
I expect better performance might be possible 5 years from now so maybe we should just wait and buy the future technology since we want the best performance possible. I know, we're getting into the area of ridiculousness. But really, I've never once thought about going back and reshooting my best pictures from 10 years ago just because I have better cameras today. And some of those old pictures were done with 8MP DSLRs, tiny sensor pocket cameras and cardboard/plastic Kodak disposables.
There's a point at which the technology is "good enough". Good enough dynamic range, good enough AF, good enough build quality--good enough camera. There's always going to be one that's better. You'll go nuts chasing after the best.
Oh, yeah. Back to the OP's original question. For night time shooting without flash--something I don't do much of--I would probably pick the current Fuji X100F. I have a couple of the older models of the camera and they're two of my favorite cameras because of the handling (I think they call it "user interface" nowadays). I was just pointing out that the Ricoh GRII has a great lens that, in my experience, is a bit better than the Fuji lens.
). I expect better performance might be possible 5 years from now so maybe we should just wait and buy the future technology since we want the best performance possible. I know, we're getting into the area of ridiculousness. But really, I've never once thought about going back and reshooting my best pictures from 10 years ago just because I have better cameras today. And some of those old pictures were done with 8MP DSLRs, tiny sensor pocket cameras and cardboard/plastic Kodak disposables.
There's a point at which the technology is "good enough". Good enough dynamic range, good enough AF, good enough build quality--good enough camera. There's always going to be one that's better. You'll go nuts chasing after the best.
Oh, yeah. Back to the OP's original question. For night time shooting without flash--something I don't do much of--I would probably pick the current Fuji X100F. I have a couple of the older models of the camera and they're two of my favorite cameras because of the handling (I think they call it "user interface" nowadays). I was just pointing out that the Ricoh GRII has a great lens that, in my experience, is a bit better than the Fuji lens.