Camera System for Low-light, Long-exposure

[yessammassey]

Let's say you have some money to spend. You could basically get any consumer-grade 35mm camera you wanted, excepting perhaps Leica and Contax stuff (unless there was something that made them really worth it for this specific type of photography).

You want to use the gear you buy for general photography, but the additional special purpose is for shooting in low light. Mostly on a tripod, but also handheld. Mostly urban & architectural scenes, but also occasional environmental portrait and street. Mostly at speeds from 1/30 to 15 seconds. Not so much astro. Not so much super-long exposure.

Here are the criteria I think you would look for, but maybe I'm missing something:

1st. Low vibration from shutter and mirror.

2nd. Autoexposure that can meter to at least 30 seconds. (You could live with using bulb mode if the camera was otherwise extraordinarily dampened and excelled in other areas.)

3rd. MLU/mirror prefire (do you consider the lack of this a deal breaker, or are there truly cameras with such superb mirror dampening that it doesn't matter?)

Honorable mentions: Relatively fast lenses that perform well at maximum aperture; sharp wides with not-unreasonable distortion; adjustable self-timer; meters for 3200; reliable; serviceable; doesn't look like a modern DSLR. These are all negotiable, secondary characteristics. The first criterion is by far the most important.

There was a user here (sorry I forget the name) who made a very convincing pitch to me that the Pentax LX was among the very best cameras for this sort of photography.

Does the collective wisdom of APUG have any other suggestions? If you can name a camera body, great. If you can provide a little bit of reasoning to justify your pick, even better.

Right now my go-to for this sort of thing is an SRT-101. It has MLU and a well dampened horizontal shutter, but no AE. I am not sold on it or any other Minolta camera.

 

[MattKing]

Pentax LX - Les Sarile is its champion here I believe.
Olympus OM 2N.
Both are really well vibration damped and have extra-ordinary long exposure metering capabilities, using off-the-film metering.
The Olympus OM-4T and OM-2s have similar strengths. The OM-2 has even longer long exposure metering capability.

 

[Leigh B]

1st. Low vibration from shutter and mirror.

The duration will be a small fraction of a second, perhaps of significance if shooting 1/10 to 1/25 or so shutter speed.
It's of no consequence when working with longer exposures.

- Leigh

 

[chuck94022]

I don't know of any camera that meters properly taking into consideration reciprocity failure. So in my opinion, when you are moving into the +2 second domain, you're necessarily taking charge of your photography, and not leaving it all up to the camera. Which is as it should be anyway, because who cares about photos that a robot takes?

In the slow domain, you don't need most of what you've listed. You don't need MLU. You can bulb open the shutter with a dark card in front of the lens, remove the card, wait the exposure time, cover with the card, bulb closed the shutter. Easy peasy. You can even count off the seconds in your head, accuracy isn't nearly as critical when you're in the seconds range (especially if you're shooting negative film).

For me, the camera body choice is driven by my lens collection. If you don't yet have any lenses for 35mm format (you list yourself as a MF shooter), my recommendation is to first decide which lenses you like, then choose a body that supports that maker's lenses. Most any body works fine for slow speed shooting, and you needn't be so dependent on in-camera automation. With a four second exposure, for example, you'd have to miss by two seconds to under expose one stop, and four seconds to over expose one stop. The precision offered by an in-camera meter, combined with modern negative film, is overkill.

So for the purpose you cited, I'd throw out your three criteria. Instead, I'd have my first requirement as a body supporting my lens choice(s), and another requirement for a bright viewfinder. That last one will probably limit your 35mm choices to more high-end cameras. (Not a big deal, they're all cheap these days.)

Personally, I'm partial to my Nikons. For your proposed uses, I'd probably grab my FM3a (though any of the Nikon FMs would do), but my F4 or F5 would do just fine (but they're serious overkill for what you need.)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

RF lenses gives less distortion, 50 for portraits and UWA for architecture. I don't have problems with Leica down to 1/2 handhold, because no mirror and how shutter works. Bessa RF should be no problem with 1/15. Because here is no ground glass, it is much more easy to see in RF VF in low light. Viogtlander has very fast 35 and 50 lenses.
I also have FED-2 with Jupiter-3 50 1.5 and to me it is nice and easy camera to use in low light. Some prefer Contax-Kiev, those are more easy to focus in low light. Autoexposure is not something I trust in low light. I'm using incident light meter for precise exposure or phone app for long exposure metering.

If Leica, RF is taboo, I would check on Canon EOS latest film SLRs, they support modern flashes and might allow you to use TTL flash focus assistant beam without firing. 50L 1.2 works on latest film bodies and Canon also has T&S L lenses which makes sense for architecture. But I don't think Canon service film gear. To be honest, I don't think it is big problem. Most advanced EOS film bodies are cheap now.

Leica does full service and indpendand technicians do, FED-2 and Jupiter-3 are DIY. I meet one guy in Moscow who isn't expert on service, but with available info on Internet he completely rehauled Contax RF. Apparently they are made more simpler for service than Leica.
You could buy new film camera with AE and manufacturer warranty, not old new stock, but new. Leica M7.
One of professional photographer I knew and have his book is using M7 for tricky low light situations.
The book name is Kolodosero. Lots of low light photos, portraits and landscapes.

 

[pdeeh]

If (as chuck points out) you are already a MF photographer, can you elaborate on why you don't want to use your existing equipment for this particular purpose, and what it is you think using 35mm will offer over MF in this tripod-and-long-exposure situation?

I have no axe to grind, it's simply that as someone who has gear from LF down to submin, I wouldn't elect immediately for 35mm for the application you have in mind.

Understanding why you think it is better than your existing setup might help others offer you more specific, targeted suggestions, rather than the usual suggestions which are often based on what the poster themselves owns.

 

[klownshed]

+1 OM-2n

I've had good results with an OM-2n in low light long exposures, both manual and in auto. In auto I tend to bracket by dialling in some exposure compensation.

It even works in auto with a 10 stop filter.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Pentax LX - it monitors the light striking the film and will keep the shutter open all night if it has to.

Les Sarile has shown a few such amazing photos here from his LX.

 

[locutus]

If still Leica, the R8 does everything you ask (down to having 30 seconds on the dial!) and the 50/2 isn't that expensive.

Now the question if it looks like a modern DSLR is a difficult one to answer

 

[AgX]

Pentax LX - it monitors the light striking the film and will keep the shutter open all night if it has to.

But that only yields a benefit if the luminance of the object changes during exposure.

Reading from the film during exposure does not guarantee correct exposure (as you seem to indicate) by integrating the exposing light when its level is too low for the sensor.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Pentax LX is clearly the best tool when it comes to long aperture priority autoexpose. I have conducted repeatable tests lasting several hours long on both of my Pentax LX.

• Aperture priority for a long as it takes (or batteries die) all the while monitoring the scene for changes in lighting and adjusting exposure
• Biggest brightest viewfinder
• MLU
• Stable tripod
• Shutter lock - if you want to use bulb mode and forgot a remote cable

But for autoexposures lasting only 30 seconds or less, other models from Olympus, Nikon and Canon are capable of this. All Canons - past and present, have a maximum autoexposure time of 30 seconds. The Nikons have been dependable in the low minutes. The OM2 and OM4 are only a few minutes but they also monitor the scene and adjust accordingly - within limits.

One problem I encountered with these super long autoexposures is determining when the autoexposure is done. So I fabricated a battery+LED to be plugged into the LX's sync port. It turns on while the shutter is open and turns off when the exposure is done.

This was >15minutes on Kodak Kodak Ektar 100

This is what my not so smart phone could do with the same scene.

You can see the LED to the right middle as it was pointing behind the LX.

 

[elcabezagrande]

Yashica Electro 35(G,GT,GTN,GS,GSN). Long metered exposures on a shoestring budget, excellent lens.

 

[yessammassey]

If (as chuck points out) you are already a MF photographer, can you elaborate on why you don't want to use your existing equipment for this particular purpose, and what it is you think using 35mm will offer over MF in this tripod-and-long-exposure situation?

I have no axe to grind, it's simply that as someone who has gear from LF down to submin, I wouldn't elect immediately for 35mm for the application you have in mind.

Understanding why you think it is better than your existing setup might help others offer you more specific, targeted suggestions, rather than the usual suggestions which are often based on what the poster themselves owns.

Yes, the idea here is for situations & settings where MF would be too cumbersome or indiscreet. I would be traveling on bicycle around parks and urban areas during the evening/night. I've definitely found myself doing this before in areas where I felt like having a big camera marked me out.

I did find the Fuji GA645Zi to be light enough for easy carry-along on extended bike tours, but it's large & expensive looking, while still being so light that it wouldn't make a very good self-defense tool..

I have used a kiev4 for this purpose, as well. As mentioned upthread, rangefinders have an advantage for long exposures thanks to the absence of reflex mirror vibration. But it's currently in pieces - maybe I'll fix it someday. The lens was sharp but could flare under streetlights, and I honestly have a little bit more difficulty with getting the exact perspective I want for architectural elements in the scenes I shoot with rangefinders. It's easier to when you have a TTL view.

A bessa R with a couple of lenses has been on my shortlist for a while, though. And I'm strongly considering one now. But I'm also wondering if I might find something cheaper, though, considering the use case and attendant chances of breakage or loss.

 

[narsuitus]

Camera System for Low-light, Long-exposure

I have two 35mm cameras that I use for low-light, long-exposure, film photography.

The first is a Nikon F4 SLR with 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses. If additional lenses fast are needed, I add the 50mm f/1.4, 24mm f/2, and 135mm f/2.

The second is a Leica M6 rangefinder with 35mm f/1.4 and 90mm f/2 lenses. I use this when I need to shoot with less operational noise and less vibration due to mirror slap. Since you eliminated Leica as a consideration, you can substitute a Zeiss or a Voigtländer body.

Even though both cameras have built-in light meters, I prefer to also use a hand-held light meter.



SLR by Narsuitus, on Flickr





Rangefinder by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...

A bessa R with a couple of lenses has been on my shortlist for a while, though. And I'm strongly considering one now. But I'm also wondering if I might find something cheaper, though, considering the use case and attendant chances of breakage or loss.

Bessa T. It will take those modern Viogtlander Cosina UWA lenses, they have something like 10mm lens which is not fisheye. It has RF window for precise focusing and it has TTL metering, using two LR44 batteries which lasts forever. It is using external viewfinders, but they are above the lens mount and it minimizes parallax effect good enough for landscapes, architecture, IMO. T is possible to find for slightly above of 100 USD in like new condition. Very small, neat camera.

 

[yessammassey]

Are CV wide angle lenses (at around 20-21mm, I need no wider) rangefinder -coupled? It could matter to me if I'm using them wide open.

If still Leica, the R8 does everything you ask (down to having 30 seconds on the dial!) and the 50/2 isn't that expensive.

Now the question if it looks like a modern DSLR is a difficult one to answer

I like the R8. It's a contender, even though it's probably too expensive to be a wise choice.

..

A number of people coming in making a couple of arguments along the line of:

You don't need to worry about shutter/mirror shock when making multi-minute exposures because hat trick.

Meter is pointless.

Regarding both, I'd like to clarify my use case. There will definitely be instances where I'll need to be scouting, setting up support, framing, and making an exposure, under less than luxurious time allowances. In these cases I would value a good integral meter and AE.

A significant number of exposures will be made between 1/30 and 1 second.

So you can't cheat this game by tossing out criteria. Sorry. (Laughing here. Joking)

And something I've noticed when using an old, worn-out XD-7, was that, compared to an SRT101 with horizontal shutter and MLU, exposures made in the 1/4 to 10 second range were lacking in critical sharpness. And point light sources looked 'wiggly'. Exposures from the SRT did not have these faults.

I would be happy to believe that the XD-7 was just so worn out that its mirror and shutter movement dampening was 'shot' and that a well cared for copy of this camera with good dampening would not fare so poorly against the SRT. But still, I feel like I shouldn't be as dismissive of the need for MLU or good dampening at longer exposures. Maybe my experiences with a faulty camera color that opinion, though.

 

[fstop]

Too bad you don't like Minolta, an XK could do what you want.
Another choice with a reputation for being able to accurately meter for minutes using aperture priority mode,has MLU by default when using the self timer, has a decent shutter, when foam is in good shape not a lot of vibration, can be bought for under 150 bucks
is.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
the Nikon FE. Get one.
(don't listen those who have issues with electronic controls)
For long exposures I use my LF tripod, a Bogen with a Manfrotto head, beasts weighs 18 pounds I take looooong exposures with it and its stable.

 

[Les Sarile]

There was a user here (sorry I forget the name) who made a very convincing pitch to me that the Pentax LX was among the very best cameras for this sort of photography.

Apparently not convincing enough. What is your heistation/reservation about the LX?

 

[chuck94022]

Let's say you have some money to spend. You could basically get any consumer-grade 35mm camera you wanted, excepting perhaps Leica and Contax stuff...

(Re-reading your original post...) So, you came into a windfall of $20... ;-)

 

[yessammassey]

Hey chuck. We should meet up sometime. Maybe you're actually willing to give helpful advice in person. In exchange, you can take a picture of me.

(I must be poor.)

I like Minolta just fine in general. Their lenses are a known quality to me, and a good one at that. But every time I look at an XK, I'm a little put off by the size compared to something like the Pentax LX. I am going to take my newer XD, 24/2.8 Rokkor, and newer heavier-duty tripod out for some night shooting to test it out (both on tripod and handheld), but I don't have a lot of confidence in its dampening given my experience with the previous copy I owned.

That said, how much stock do folks put in the idea that, as we are so far removed from the era when these 'cool' 35mm SLRs were being manufactured, and with the used camera market being a crap shoot mostly of stuff that other people didn't care for, camera condition matters more than whatever the original specs claimed in regard to things like shutter/mirror dampening?

Speaking of the FE, it would be on the short list if I wasn't somewhat let down by the performance of its cousin the FM in the 1/30-1sec range. But given the above question, I'm not sure if my prejudice is rightly directed against the Copal Square as such. Maybe the poor performance is simply due to wear & tear.

As for why I haven't bought an LX yet, two reasons. 1.) I don't know much about the lenses. I need to do more research, especially into what the good wide angle is among the SMC Takumars, its availability, and if it's reasonably priced. (I only need one good WA. Anywhere from 20-28, as long as it's good. A good 50 is a given, and a good tele would be icing on the cake) I've been burned on so many 35mm SLR used lenses (mostly for Nikon), that I'm very hesitant to commit to any system until I can sniff out the availability of good condition, quality lenses. 2.) Even though I love the way it looks, I'm concerned that for the price of a relatively flawlessly-functioning example would too close to that of a newer camera to justify the risk that comes with age. I guess I could say that about the Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, etc. etc. cameras as well. But that's why I'm asking the forum. Maybe one of these various brands of old-timers is better than the others for my purposes. Les Sarile, that you can prove the suitability of your camera with the photos you share and accounts you give of its use makes me think that the LX is the choice for my purposes - among the subset of older pro-level 35mm SLRs, at least. Would you share how you acquired yours? Things you would look out for if you were buying another?

I think I'm making progress here. My choices seem clearer. Here's where I think I stand right now, with selections based on the advice shared in this thread.

• Nikon (FE/FE2/F4, etc.) - Not considering. Bad experience with FM. F4 too heavy. F2 (with horizontal cloth shutter and MLU) might be nice, but so far I haven't been impressed with the Nikon WA lenses that I've used. This may be unfair on its face, but most manual Nikkors I've come across on the market seem to have been used so extensively and banged around that even "EX" rated copies now suffer from bad centering and the like. Pristine copies are expensive collectibles.

• Canon EOS - Not considering, solely due to appearance. Too much like a DSLR. More likely to offend candid subjects and increases likelihood of theft.

• Minolta (XD? XK? SRT) - Maybe considering. Perhaps it's because they weren't part of a 'pro' system, but the lenses I've used generally seem to have stood the test of time better than the Nikkors at similar price points. Some question as to whether the newer/more compact bodies have adequate dampening without MLU.

• Olympus (OM-2n/OM-4, etc.)- Should consider. I've heard that there are a couple of very highly-regarded OM wides out there. Some question as to whether the newer bodies have adequate dampening without MLU.

• Pentax LX - Frontrunner among classic 35mm SLRs. Concerns addressed above.

• Voigtlander Bessa (T/R) - Frontrunners among modern rangefinders. Relative affordability, lack of mirror, and availability of newer stock are enticing. Just need to decide if the combined RF/VF is worth it. A whole world of simple and solid LTM lenses, with some superb wides.

• An alternative not mentioned in the thread so far: Bessaflex TM - Body is expensive, but modern and thus assumed more reliable(?) Need more info on availability & pricing of good, quality M42 wides. A world of cheap lenses out there, though. A slick-looking camera, equal to the Pentax LX in my estimation.

• Priced out: Leica (M and R), Contax (G and SLR).

It's going to be a good long while before I make a decision. Unless I cave and pony up for a Bessa R or Bessaflex TM, I am going to be very, very selective, and wait until I know I have something functionally flawless (i.e. practically good as new in terms of functionality, not necessarily appearance) at a reasonable (even if high-ish) price. I'll probably wait until I've worked out which of my medium format cameras I'm going to keep before I start seriously shopping for a new 35mm camera. That's going to be two or more months down the road, so any more advice or suggestions anyone has would be welcome in the meantime.

One thing I haven't addressed is the possibility of using a high quality compact/P&S camera for my purposes. The focal length and max aperture selection is much more limited, though. I guess the XA4 or Ricoh GR series (or maybe even the Contax T4 zoom) could be adequate. Any thoughts on those?

 

[Les Sarile]

• An alternative not mentioned in the thread so far: Bessaflex TM - Body is expensive, but modern and thus assumed more reliable(?) Need more info on availability & pricing of good, quality M42 wides. A world of cheap lenses out there, though. A slick-looking camera, equal to the Pentax LX in my estimation.

The Bessaflex TM is slick but it is not remotely comparable to the LX since it doesn't even have aperture priority. With an adapter, the LX can also use M42 lenses.

Used equipment come with some risks of course. However, if you are in the USA, Eric is the the Pentax guy -> http://pentaxs.com/. Short of a complete electronic failure - of which there are no more new replacement parts, he can make it like new.

My first LX was acquired from Dead Link Removed in EX condition. My second LX was purchased from the auction site in unknown condition but cheap. Both are 100% fully functional and accurate more than 7 years later.

 

[GRHazelton]

I'll second Les' comments on the Pentax LX. I've used mine for moonlight shots on C-41, the total exposure was probably 15 minutes. Perfectly exposed, but really odd color, given the quality of light reflected off the moon.

Fireworks displays were a piece of cake. I wasted a frame or two to determine how long the shutter might remain open, adjusted the aperture appropriately, and then triggered the shutter with a cable release at the first sign of "launch." It goes without saying that a decent tripod is a must, and for the fireworks the winder was a blessing, since toward the end things got hurried. I used an 19mm Vivitar so framing was simple; the show was on the Kanahwa River running through Charleston, WV, and the reflections of the fireworks on the river added a nice touch.

Some one mentioned reciprocity failure; Kodak used to address this in the dear old dead days. Given data adjusting the ASA for compensation would do the trick, of course there are color shifts. With C-41 this could be handled in scanning or printing; transparencies are another story which I leave to those with color temperature meters and CC filters and the needed expertise.

 

[Bill Burk]

I found myself happy using a Kodak 35 ($5 and some time cleaning).

It has a T setting and paired with a Weston Master III, a Star-D tripod, Panatomic-X it was capable of taking some very fine photographs.

I found, as did you, that slight movement in a brief part of an otherwise very long exposure leads to serious unsharpness. It ruined a few of my pictures. These were black backgrounds and white rocks... the indistinct blur is obvious and was caused because I thought a little shake would not matter in a 20 second exposure. I was wrong. I didn't use a cable release and I was hasty hitting the shutter release. I could have held my hand in front of the lens, opened the shutter, and moved my hand back to close it. Or I could have used a cable release - I had one.

MLU is important but cable release is more important. EOS, ugly as it is, can use an IR remote to trigger. OM-4 self-timer locks up mirror when you start timer. But it is the least reliable camera function. OM-1 has the best MLU - a dedicated switch. Mechanical self-timer is also very reliable.

 

[klownshed]

One feature that all the cameras mentioned are missing (I think!) is a viewfinder blind. My Nikon F90x has a little lever to block out stray light from entering through the viewfinder which can be a problem especially with daylight long exposures using an ND filter.

But the F90x needs a stupid electronic shutter release cable. So I never use it for LEs.

The OM-1 MLU is indeed the most practical, its a shame that feature never made it to the OM-2. it's not auto so doesn't meet the OPs requirements anyway. But it is a great camera regardless.

(I used mine a lot this year but it's now time for a CLA, if you wind it on with the shutter speed set to a slow speed it fires the shutter so it's having a rest until I can get it serviced).

I have tried lots of different cameras over the past few years and the OM-2 is the one I keep returning to. It's my daily camera now, usually with a 50mm F1.8 and 28mm f3.5 + B+W 10 stop 49mm ND filter in the bag (I have faster 50 and 28s but the slower ones are just as sharp if not sharper and smaller and lighter) and 135mm f3.5 to round out the set when required. But less is more and the less kit I take the more likely I am to actually use it and get results with which I'm happy.

And to return to the subject at hand, it makes a very good low light camera, especially on auto.

 

[narsuitus]

One feature that all the cameras mentioned are missing (I think!) is a viewfinder blind.

The Nikon F4 has viewfinders with eyepiece blinds.