Noctilux, Summilux, low-light

[Roger Hicks]

How much (or how little) light do you need to focus? Last night I used a 35/1.4 to photograph musicians inside a 1000 year old castle; today, a 50/1. Today, at ISO 2,500 and 1/12 at f/1, with relatively low-contrast subjects, I was having trouble focusing. Yesterday -- with much more contrast -- I was okay at about the same levels.

Any other thoughts on focusing at very low light levels? What are the real limits? At what point does '100% accurate' focus become meaningless, negated by camera shake as well as focusing difficulty?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BillP]

Hi Roger,

Good, practical question. I don't use a Noctilux - my fastest lenses are a 40mm Nokton and a Canon 1.2, but I understand what you mean.

I think that there are other factors beyond the light level itself, namely contrast and motion. Hitting a moving target in low light is very difficult; more so if that target is low contrast. When I am shooting in low light I tend to aim for areas or points of light in the plane of focus. That's the only way I can do it, and I wouldn't call it easy! The other factor lies in the viewing - the tolerance of the viewer for what constitutes an "acceptable" low light image. One will often get kudos just for getting an image, let alone a sharp one if the lighting conditions are judged to be bad.

Regards,

Bill

 

[D.O'K.]

Aside from the constraints of the camera, the "real limits" may also be strongly age related. An opthalmologist friend advises that the amount of light needed for a person to see easily increases significantly with age: e.g. someone of 65 usually needs around 3 times as much light as someone aged 20 to see clearly. Certainly I've noticed--at 46--that I need much more light to read comfortably etc. than only a few years ago.

On a practical level, in the light is too poor for accurate focusing I usually cheat and use the depth of field scale (assuming I can see it...)

Regards,
D.O'K.

 

[BillP]

Snip.

Certainly I've noticed--at 46--that I need much more light to read comfortably etc. than only a few years ago.

Snip.

It's not just me then... At 46 I set fire to my first menu a month ago, by holding it too close to the candle...

Regards,

Bill

 

[Nikon Bob]

It's not just me then... At 46 I set fire to my first menu a month ago, by holding it too close to the candle...

Regards,

Bill

Good one, yeah getting old hurts. I think I will need a searchlight soon to read.

Bob

 

[F456]

Just to lend my support to the failing eyesight lamentations:-

I'm finding that one minute I can judge the rangefinder coincidence just so; next minute everything looks dicey and I start to wonder if the mechanism needs readjustment!

But to stick to the main point of the thread, for me flare in the viewfinder's central rectangular patch in normal lighting is more of an enemy than low contrast low light. For some reason I seldom have any trouble with that.

Luckily most of the shots are still coming out far better than focusing angst is preparing me for... I'm 52 and the rot set in somewhere after 45 (only at close range, not at distances).

Tom

 

[Anupam]

Focusing and amount of light seem to correlate for ground glass focusing (SLRs, TLRs, view cameras etc). For rangefinders it's mostly the contrast. If I can get a good vertical line on the plane where I want to focus, really low light isn't that much of a problem with a good VF/RF. I have found that most fixed lens cameras are not very good i terms of RF contrast and baselength, so M mount cameras would be my choice.

 

[Anupam]

Edit: Funny thing, I always have trouble focussing a RF held vertically, I have to focus with the camera horizontal first.

Exactly the same for me.

 

[Rayt]

I have a Noctilux but can't focus it when the light is too low. I still can enjoy its effects at f/1 aperture with fast shutter speeds and slow film so it isn't wasted. For really low light I need something with better dof like a 35/1.4 with film bodies or 28/2 on the M8. My eyes don't function like they do 20 years ago. I wish someone would invent a magnifier that swings out of the way like the ones for the Hasselblad.

 

[urban_alchemist]

Focussing on the Noctilux is all down to contrast - light is pretty irrelevant. I'll admit that at 28 my eye-sight is probably still on the 'pretty-damn-good' scale of things, but I don't think it is totally down to that.

Alot of the time, I won't focus on the subject, but instead look for something in the same plane to use instead - such as a light-bulb, or reflective metal. As they are usually exceptionally contrasty, even with bad eye-sight I'd still probably be able to focus...

 

[Roger Hicks]

I thought some examples might be of interest. The one with the big shadows is about 1/30 at f/1.4 with the 35mm: easy. The top (empty wall space) has been cropped The second (a complete failure) is about 1/8 at f/1 and the third is cropped (abour 1/5 the whole area) from 1/12 at f/1. The cigarette, complete with 'Leica glow', was bright enough to focus on when she dragged on it, but not otherwise.

On the first night, the concert was inside the donjon: I had the 35/1.4 on the camera by chance (I came upon the concert by accident). On the second, it was outside; the Noctilux wasn't really needed, but I took a few pics inside after rain stopped play.

The problem with the Noctilux is that it makes everything look too bright and contrasty, of course, when really it was very dim indeed. My real point in the original post is that even allowing for loss of sensitivity with age, by the time you're shooting longer than 1/15 at f/1 with ISO 2500, how much does it matter if you can't see to focus?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[D.O'K.]

"...by the time you're shooting longer than 1/15 at f/1 with ISO 2500, how much does it matter if you can't see to focus?"

Assuming that you're handholding longer than 1/15, won't camera shake usually render attempts at precise focussing academic?

Nice "big shadows" picture, if I may--slightly redolent of early 17th c. Dutch painting (except the woman looks too cheerful...)

Regards,
D.O'K.

 

[Anupam]

The problem with the Noctilux is that it makes everything look too bright and contrasty, of course, when really it was very dim indeed.

If I might ask, why would this be a problem of the lens rather than of metering. (lenses can of add a certain bit of contrast but only so much - also I don't know the Noctilux, but isn't it a low contrast lens?).

I do find, however, that many camera metered night shots - even very carefully shot ones - look unnaturally bright - the scenes never look that way to the eye. The only reliable way to meter at night, I feel, is careful spot metering or if that is impossible, metering by eye. The contrast in night scenes seems to fool most meters into pushing the whole scene up to middle gray - which results in overexposure. I have been shooting on the streets at night a bit, and have tried to avoid the overexposed look in favor of a more natural dark scene that our eyes see. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know how I am doing on the metering.

Metered by eye - 35mm: TMZ @ EI 2000, TriX @ 250, TriX @ 250
Some spot metered 4x5 shots here

Thanks,
Anupam

 

[feenej]

Lots of times in the dark I go with f4 and a 1/4 to 1 second exposure, that way you don't have to be perfectly focused as you do with wide apertures. Part of it is developing too. This was a half second (or quarter maybe) exposure, 6 hours developing time, 7 mls Rodinal in 1000 mls water. It was in a very dark club.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Assuming that you're handholding longer than 1/15, won't camera shake usually render attempts at precise focussing academic?

Nice "big shadows" picture, if I may--slightly redolent of early 17th c. Dutch painting (except the woman looks too cheerful...)

Thanks for the kind words: point taken about less-than-cheery Netherlanders in old paintings!

As for the hand-holding, yes and no. My feeling is that you MIGHT get lucky with a long hand-held pic, so focusing as accurately as possible is a good idea in case you do. If you don't, then as you say, it is unlikely to matter -- except perhaps that (for example) a 'smeared' eye highlight will look different according to how well it was focused in the first place.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[awilder]

As you and our readers are well aware, focusing in low light is where RF's excel (especially the Leica M or Zeiss ZM). One trick to aid in focusing is to remain in the low light setting as long as possible in order for the eyes to dark adapt, thus allowing the eyes to discriminate marginal contrast in the lowest of light situations. A good AR coating on spectacles helps as well.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I might ask, why would this be a problem of the lens rather than of metering. (lenses can of add a certain bit of contrast but only so much - also I don't know the Noctilux, but isn't it a low contrast lens?).

I do find, however, that many camera metered night shots - even very carefully shot ones - look unnaturally bright - the scenes never look that way to the eye. The only reliable way to meter at night, I feel, is careful spot metering or if that is impossible, metering by eye. . .

Dear Anupam,

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. The 'problem' is that so many Noctilux shots don't look like they were shot in poor light, leading to the comment, "Oh, you didn't need a Noctilux for that" when you're shooting at 1/15 at f/1 (better than 1/4 at f/2, hand-held...)

Even after aiming off for the lousy monitor on my internet computer (I keep separate machines for writing, imaging and web), it looks to me as if you may have over-compensated in the 'judged by eye' shots -- but of course this is also very personal, so I can't really say much. All I can say is that I'd have been inclined to give more exposure (or print lighter). The spot metered shots made it much easier for me to judge.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

As you and our readers are well aware, focusing in low light is where RF's excel (especially the Leica M or Zeiss ZM). One trick to aid in focusing is to remain in the low light setting as long as possible in order for the eyes to dark adapt, thus allowing the eyes to discriminate marginal contrast in the lowest of light situations. A good AR coating on spectacles helps as well.

Absolutely. The only rider I'd add is that sometimes in ultra-low-light, there are light sources that you can't really avoid looking at while scanning the scene. But if you can avoid them, I agree 100%.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[awilder]

Good point Roger. Like plants, humans are heliotropic, i.e drawn towards light. Also applies to critquing photos and removing bright areas that distract from the main subject.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. .. and removing bright areas that distract from the main subject.

At the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, another good point!

Cheers,

R.