Rangefinders Kings of Low Light? Need advice on an upgrade path.

dugrant153 · Sep 11, 2014

So I had a chance to shoot a wedding using Olympus OM cameras (they were amazing!) and Pentax film (PZ1p) and digital cameras (K01). The Olympus cameras notably served me pretty well for the most part in achieving great black and white results and documentary look. It was a bright sunny day so focusing was fine most of the time.

However, there were portions of the day (notably the evening) when even my digital and film autofocus cameras gave up and focusing with the OM just fell apart (difficult to find lines to split with the split prism and microprisms went to squat resorted to basically guessing with ground glass). Even my newer Pentax digital AF camera had a tough time even tougher when people were moving.

It was frustrating having such a low hit ratio. I try my absolute hardest to not resort to flash (just the way I work) but in this case, I really had to pull it out. The digital Pentax AF was enough to get most of the shots but there were a lot of times it was slow and would fire only AFTER I wanted to take the shot. Timing is really important to me as I like to catch that dare I say decisive moment.

And I dont want to move to a Nikon/Canon full frame DSLR I really like film, even more so sometimes when its pushed HP5 or TMAX to 1600 or 3200.

Ive been playing around with the idea of a rangefinder for a long time and Im beginning to think that maybe I shouldve done it a long time ago given the type of events I shoot and the way I shoot. I really like the Olympus cameras and I kind of see them as my rangefinders though...
So Ive considered two routes.

1) Continue with the Olympus OM line and invest heavily into low light lenses and focusing screens. i.e. 2-XX series screens (or maybe diagonal split prism screens), OM 28mm F2 and OM 50mm F1.2. [Estimated cost of $1,000ish]
2) Buy a rangefinder as a compliment to my current OM/Pentax system. Thinking new Bessa R4M with new CV 28mm F2 or 40mm F1.4. [Estimated cost of $1,400, maybe more].

Unfortunately Leica stuff is way out of my budget (havent booked THAT many events this year). Would be curious what you folks think and would appreciate your advice.

I dont mind using digital and flash occasionally for really low light but I really prefer the look of film. May just use them side by side if it gets dark enough. Dont want to use just digital as my only option for super low light as, per mentioned above, it was not the ideal.

I know I'm asking a lot of my equipment and stupid low light focusing is probably something all professionals struggle with?

Xmas · Sep 11, 2014

Available darkness always difficult

Leica M3 finder in good condition peerless, Canon P close second. Some finders seen better days try in low light before you buy.

Canon 5cm /1.4 LTM or /1.2 LTM or Cosina /1.5 etc.

Still expensive.

Peltigera · Sep 11, 2014

You could try setting the focus manually at a sensible distance and moving in to that distance for each shot.

frank · Sep 11, 2014

I believe that as well as a focusing advantage in low light, RF cameras are easier to handhold still at low speeds.

erikg · Sep 11, 2014

Zeiss ZM rangefinder viewfinder is pretty great, maybe better than an M. Bringing in a whole new system though, I wouldn't do it. Keep things simple, then you can really be comfortable with your gear, and it's limitations, which they all have. I've shot and continue to shoot OMs for many years now. Faster glass is a great help, the right screens too. I also find in those situations that my best play is to move from wide to tighter, and find those more intimate moments. So I go to a 50 1.4 (also have 55 1.2) and 85 1.4. It seems counter intuitive perhaps to go that way in lower light as wides are easier to handhold but on the other hand an SLR shows me something that a rangefinder can't and that is what is going on with depth of field. Separating a nice expression on a face in a crowd - clients love it. As to the screen, I don't use a split image, I just focus on the screen itself. I don't like to reframe. Good body positioning, a steady hand, watching for the moments, being patient that's the way to go in my opinion. I love rangefinders and it's true that you can hand hold them at slower speeds more successfully but this is what has worked for me. The OM system is still pretty awesome. Good luck!

Chris Lange · Sep 11, 2014

If I had to be completely honest, I can acquire focus on subjects just as easily with my F3s split-image in low light as I can with my M2s RF (which is in perfect condition,as far as the brightness and accuracy of the spot goes). RFs are the kings of focusing on things that have distinct edges in low light but are near useless when the thing you want to focus on has relatively low contrast.

frank · Sep 11, 2014

Chris Lange said:
If I had to be completely honest, I can acquire focus on subjects just as easily with my F3s split-image in low light as I can with my M2s RF (which is in perfect condition,as far as the brightness and accuracy of the spot goes). RFs are the kings of focusing on things that have distinct edges in low light but are near useless when the thing you want to focus on has relatively low contrast.

What you can do in situations like that, is find a suitable higher contrast alternative subject the same distance away, focus on that, then switch back to your intended subject.

The physics of rangefinder triangulation determines that a rangefinder camera with a longer rangefinder base is much more accurate than the split image of an SLR focusing screen. It's just inarguable physics.

Chris Lange · Sep 11, 2014

frank said:
What you can do in situations like that, is find a suitable higher contrast alternative subject the same distance away, focus on that, then switch back to your intended subject.

The physics of rangefinder triangulation determines that a rangefinder camera with a longer rangefinder base is much more accurate than the split image of an SLR focusing screen. It's just inarguable physics.

Frank, absolutely. I use that method constantly when photographing on the street at night. However, tracking a moving object in a dark room with rapidly changing light conditions is an exercise in futility with an RF, in my experience. I used to use mine in underground nightclubs in NYC all the time...trying to focus on something illuminated only by strobe lights flashing, while they, or you,may be moving is not my idea of a good time. Compared to that, focusing on -anything- seems easy.

I have since switched to using a Contax T2 or my F3s for those images.

frank · Sep 11, 2014

Chris Lange said:
Frank, absolutely. I use that method constantly when photographing on the street at night. However, tracking a moving object in a dark room with rapidly changing light conditions is an exercise in futility with an RF, in my experience. I used to use mine in underground nightclubs in NYC all the time...trying to focus on something illuminated only by strobe lights flashing, while they, or you,may be moving is not my idea of a good time. Compared to that, focusing on -anything- seems easy.

I have since switched to using a Contax T2 or my F3s for those images.

For sure, use whatever works for you! Zone focusing is a good idea in such a situation.

Attached pic taken with Leica llf, Summaron f3.5, set on a counter top, 1-2 sec.

dugrant153 · Sep 12, 2014

Thanks all for the feedback. It's still a tough choice and I think I will still be looking around for a bit. Looking at some of the shots from the wedding and having fast lenses and a good viewing screen on the SLR helped. Makes me wonder if I could be as accurate if focusing on something "off center" to the frame (I think this is something that RF's can't really do unless it's a focus+recompose?).

While I should stick to my kit and learn to grow with it, I also feel like I could benefit from the strengths of rangefinders to "add" to this, especially with wide angle lenses (i.e. my OM28mm F2.8 is a great lens but when the light goes down it can get really hard to focus).

Xmas · Sep 12, 2014

You could trade the /2.8 for the /2 28mm

bigger
heavier
stop brighter on screen
stop snappier focusing you can still use /2.8 or
speed faster on shutter

As well buy different screens either 3rd party or OM4 only types you might need the OM4 for the diopter in poor light.

In dull light you may only be able to use the split image so there is no option but to focus and recompose like a rangefinger?

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...mpusom1n2/shared/accessory/screens/index1.htm

Siompa · Sep 12, 2014

You might look into yashica 14e, it comes with yashinon 45mm 1.8 lens or the canon ql17 or what it's called, I know that one of them has a 1.7 lens, don't remember how wide it is though

TheToadMen · Sep 12, 2014

Siompa said:
You might look into (...) the canon ql17 or what it's called, I know that one of them has a 1.7 lens, don't remember how wide it is though

You mean the Canonet QL17 GIII? See: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Canon_Canonet_QL_17_GIII
and
https://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm

It is a nice camera to use and has a 40 mm. The first model had a 45 mm lens:

"As a footnote, I should mention that Canon really liked the name "Canonet 17." In fact, they liked it so much they used it on THREE different cameras. The first was in 1965. It has a longer 45/1.7 lens and was noticeably larger than the later two QL-17's, but made along basically the same lines. The next Canonet QL-17 came out in 1969, looking very much like the later Canonet G-III 17 QL of 1972. The QL-17 G-III added a stronger rewind lever, a battery test light beside the battery test button, and according to Canon "improved quality," but they are almost identical in appearance. "

Xmas · Sep 12, 2014

Siompa said:
You might look into yashica 14e, it comes with yashinon 45mm 1.8 lens or the canon ql17 or what it's called, I know that one of them has a 1.7 lens, don't remember how wide it is though

The Canonet G-III QL has a 40mm /1.7
A Minolta 7s has a 45mm /1.8

The Canonet is more compact but only meters in auto and is shutter priority, ie in manual no meter, the Minolta is programme or manual with metering in both.

There is a whole range of trapped needle rangefinders, all have different rule sets.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 12, 2014

The 14e has a 50 f1.4 lens (thus the 14 in the name).

trythis · Sep 12, 2014

The Konica Auto S2.
Fully manual or shutter priority.
Big finder, cheap, easier battery than the yashica gs series.
Meter behind filter, 45mm 1.8
Its big but quiet.

It hasn't got a hot shoe so its cold shoe and cable but you don't like flash anyway.

TheToadMen · Sep 12, 2014

Leica M5,
Very nice camera but less popular than the other Leicas.

markbarendt · Sep 12, 2014

dugrant153 said:
While I should stick to my kit and learn to grow with it,

IMO, yes, you probably should stick to your current camera kit.

You are asking an artistic question in a business context.

The right questions as a business owner/professional photographer is "will this new tool make me more money?", "will it give me more product that I will make money on?"

I doubt it.

frank · Sep 12, 2014

Here's another way of looking at things: pretend you are a carpenter. Your existing hammer is great for most of your work but the few times when you work on cabinets, it is too big and a smaller hammer would be more appropriate. Would you then buy a smaller hammer? Probably. A camera is a tool too.

Or to keep it in the realm of photography, I'm sure you use more than one lens photographing a wedding, even if the widest (or longest) lens is used for just a few shots. Why not a different camera for certain applications too?

fotch · Sep 12, 2014

Easy solution. Shoot with a Speed or Crown Graphic with the light thingie attached to the range finder. You will be able to align the two light beam dots projected at the subject and be in perfect focus every time.

" a device coupled to the range finder that emits two light beams, that when coincide on the subject guarantees accurate focusing in low light conditions. Now you know what the batteries are for."

mrjr · Sep 12, 2014

I strongly recommend you have a look at the Konica Hexar AF. It will absolutely solve your low light focusing problem. It uses an infrared focusing system, and as such does not rely on available light at all for AF. I've read that it will even focus correctly in a pitch dark cave!

Focus is remarkably fast, even by modern standards, so it won't slow you down in "decisive moment" situations you describe. Viewfinder is big and bright, and the 35/2 lens is universally praised. A 35 is not a 28 or a 40 or a 50; up to you to determine if a 35 would work for your work.

Cost is less than $600 from reputable seller with warranty, and less than $500 private party, so well within your budget.

Other favorable features:
- Leaf shutter (handhold-able at slow speeds, high speed flash sync)
- Auto or manual iso from 6 to 6400
- Excellent distance-based flash metering
- Compact size
- Truly silent operation

Only faults worth mentioning are the 1/250s max shutter speed and the small and fiddly buttons used for changing some settings. Oh, and the metering system isn't TTL, or even housed behind the filter threads, so filter compensation is all manual.

Hope this helps.

dugrant153 · Sep 12, 2014

Speed Crown would be huge... But then again I've thought about even using my Bronica Etrs due to the massive focus screen and diagonal split prism...

I find with moving subjects will use the ground glass or the edge of the microprisms ring if the subject is not in the center.

Just grabbed a dead Yashica Lynx from a friend to test out RF focusing but the finder seems pretty dim... Probably due to age. Compared to the bright 50mm f1.4 on lens and my om4,... The om4 would get my vote.

It is true it may not make more money or bring in business. But I would like to definitely get more keepers in tough light just so my overall product looks better and, hopefully, generate more clientele. There are times the shot looks great but then I see I'm out of focus.

A third option I'm considering is building the Pentax side and getting an FA43 limited to use AF on the PZ1p. The 40ish focal length jives with me (based on experience with the CV 40mm Ultron). For the hunting in stupid low light, may be time to bring out an LED panel...I become the light source and the photographer!!

Sorry for the rambling but your advice has been very helpful and is helping me think this through.

mrjr · Sep 12, 2014

Rangefinders Kings of Low Light? Need advice on an upgrade path.

Oh, and to add my two cents worth of input regarding rangefinder versus SLR low light focusing: it's a wash, and it certainly doesn't fall in favor of a rangefinder for candids photos of low contrast, non-stationary subjects (e.g. people). This, for reference, based on my experience with a Konica Auto S3 (not M class, sure) and Pentax ME Super with 50/1.4 (comparable finder to Olympus OMs).

dugrant153 · Sep 12, 2014

Thanks for that. Seems like low contrast is killer for all focusing systems.

markbarendt · Sep 12, 2014

dugrant153 said:
It is true it may not make more money or bring in business. But I would like to definitely get more keepers in tough light just so my overall product looks better and, hopefully, generate more clientele. There are times the shot looks great but then I see I'm out of focus.

A rangefinder won't fix a razor thin DOF, IMO that is probably the issue.

Auto focus can help, but that depends on the camera.

Stopping down a bit does more, and is more reliable. From 2 to 2.8 or 4 can make a huge difference. Just add a touch of fill flash or bounce.

Rangefinders Kings of Low Light? Need advice on an upgrade path.

dugrant153

Xmas

Peltigera

frank

erikg

Chris Lange

frank

Chris Lange

frank

Attachments

dugrant153

Xmas

Siompa

TheToadMen

Xmas

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

trythis

TheToadMen

markbarendt

frank

fotch

mrjr

dugrant153

mrjr

dugrant153

markbarendt

Rangefinders  Kings of Low Light? Need advice on an upgrade path.

Attachments

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Rangefinders Kings of Low Light? Need advice on an upgrade path.