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

[markbarendt]

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

For the movies they focus by distance, not by looking through the camera.

It's very, reliable.

 

[erikg]

For the movies they focus by distance, not by looking through the camera.

It's very, reliable.

True. They also don't (generally) hand hold their cameras.

 

[markbarendt]

True. They also don't (generally) hand hold their cameras.

Yep, absolutely, they understand the value of camera support in getting lots of keepers.

 

[dugrant153]

OK so I've done some research, talked to some local people (camera shops, repair people) and I think for me the Rangefinder is what I'm looking for ultimately. I could buy another AF lens but I think, without a significant body upgrade (of which there really isn't any reasonable option from my current Pentax setup), I'd just be throwing money at the problem.

I've considered upgrades for the OM cameras but am thinking that the costs would be somewhat significant and I wouldn't be able to get what I was looking for - that is, low contrast focusing (tungsten lighting, dark areas of the room, night receptions, candlelight). I tried the focusing screen/fast lens combinations for the Nikon F3 and it simply did not work for me no matter how much money I threw at it... Live and learn.

I looked at the Leica CL and found the rangefinder base too short for what I intend to do (super low light). I've had my hands on the Voigtlander Bessas and they seem like decent machines but for the money I'd rather spend a bit more.

Which leaves me with two options: Leica M2-M5 or, at the moment, a Zeiss Ikon sitting on a shelf at a local camera store. The Zeiss Ikon is a bit pricey at $1,000 but it's a lot newer... although not sure about parts support in the long term. A used Leica in BGN condition is what I'm looking at + cost of a CLA to stay within the same budget.

As a note, I'm pairing the RF with an SLR camera to get a bit of the best of both worlds. I plan to get the lens at a later date. Thinking of a fast 28mm F2.

 

[markbarendt]

... I'd just be throwing money at the problem.

Not trying to be an arse here, but to me, you still seem to be begging to throw money at the problem.

You are bumping the limits of the physics involved; rangefinders are good cameras, but they aren't magical.

A monopod and an F100 or F5 with an AF-D 50mm f1.8 (or similar) would be a much better investment for "your business". Best guess, under $500 for all 3.

 

[waynecrider]

Totally agree with Mark.
The rangefinder patch in a M is just too small for low light decisive moment quickness so it would be guess focusing with a razor thin dof. An AF, infrared enabled camera would be a much more prudent way to go even if it was a cheap N80 with an F1.4 which has a focus assist light instead. The N80 screen btw is great.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You can focus super fast with a rangefinder if you know how. Always set the lens to infinity after ever shot. Doing so means you will always move the lens in only one direction. Fishing is way too slow, and fishing is what you will do if you don't reset the lens. I can focus my RFs as fast as any autofocus camera. And yes, I have tested it. Doing it the right way, focusing is nearly instant. You can also focus a RF according to memory. It isn't difficult to do. Estimate the distance and then adjust the lens according to the tab on the lens. It is very accurate once you get used to it.

That said, take it from someone who has shot his fair share of weddings, even for some high profile people. As much as I love film, I wouldn't shoot an entire wedding on one (as much as I would love to). I used to carry a Canon 1n with a fast 50mm on my shoulder loaded with fast black and white film set up to use the spot meter and center focus point (which would focus on anything). Easy one handed operation for when I wanted that type of photograph. Otherwise, everything was digital.

If you really need to focus fast and you find your cameras are not up to the task when the lights are low, many systems offer near dark focusing when a flash is attached to the camera since the flash will shoot a crosshatch beam that the camera uses to focus. You may want to look into that for the cameras you have.

If the Hexar AF focuses via active infrared, then that is a no brainer. Get one of those. It is one of the best cameras ever made.

If you are hell bent on getting a RF, see if you can find a Hexar RF. It won't cost you much more than a Bessa, and it is worlds better. I have been using one for years, and it is the perfect RF except for one minor thing which is the 1/10th shutter lag. The Konica lenses are some of the best as well. Don't overlook them.

Hope that helps you.

 

[markbarendt]

Focussing fast is possible with any system, if it is well practiced. For example a split prism tells one exactly which way to adjust.

 

[Arklatexian]

Years ago, when working in a camera store the Leica factory salesman had us take a Leica SLR and focus on a match stick placed on the floor about ten feet in front of the camera. When the camera was focused we were instructed to lean forward and backward until the match went out of focus. All of us lost our balance. He then took an M rangefinder camera and do the same thing. The match went out of focus almost immediately. Try this on your SLR and a borrowed rangefinder. I will always bet on the rangefinder in that contest....Regards

 

[Pioneer]

Not trying to be an arse here, but to me, you still seem to be begging to throw money at the problem.

You are bumping the limits of the physics involved; rangefinders are good cameras, but they aren't magical.

A monopod and an F100 or F5 with an AF-D 50mm f1.8 (or similar) would be a much better investment for "your business". Best guess, under $500 for all 3.

You do seem intent on buying a rangefinder. I like them myself but I don't think this is going to help.

I own and love Pentax, but fast focusing in low light environments is not their strong suit.

If you believe you need better equipment, and it certainly seems you are headed that way, do yourself a favor and try one thing first.

Buy a Nikon F6 with a 50/1.4 D AF lens and try it out in your circumstances. Buy it from someone that will accept it in return. If that does not solve your problem go ahead and buy your rangefinder.

Of course I think you really are looking for an excuse to get a rangefinder. Not that I really blame you. If so, go ahead and buy that ZI. $1,000 is a decent price. They are awesome cameras and I have used mine more or less constantly in the past year and a half. Zeiss is still in business and will be repairing these cameras for a very long time. Although it is unlikely that you will need it soon.

 

[dugrant153]

First off, thank you all again for responding with your thoughts. Appreciate all the good suggestions here and in all honesty I also appreciate the counterpoints. It helps me to sort out this decision in my head by considering as many options as possible and weighing them against my objectives.

Not trying to be an arse here, but to me, you still seem to be begging to throw money at the problem.

No offense taken and appreciate the suggestion of the Nikon.

That said, take it from someone who has shot his fair share of weddings, even for some high profile people. As much as I love film, I wouldn't shoot an entire wedding on one (as much as I would love to).

Thanks for the comments and sharing based on your experiences. I think with skill and time I can hopefully offer full film documentary weddings (ala Riccis Valladeres for ex.) in my very saturated market... but we'll leave that for another discussion.
I've tried doing the all-film wedding myself and it's pretty scary but a good challenge at the same time. That being said, I have the digital handy always as it's always a great backup. In my case, it actually became a saving grace in some tough situations.

You do seem intent on buying a rangefinder. I like them myself but I don't think this is going to help.

I own and love Pentax, but fast focusing in low light environments is not their strong suit.

Upon reflecting on this thread, I think that statement is actually truthful. I do seem pretty intent on trying to justify an RF purchase. I guess I like the idea of the rangefinder and, in fact, would love to use it during the entire day as well and not just for the low-light AF thing. I'm messing around with a Yashica Electroc 35 GS (with a pad of death or whatever it's called - shutter doesn't work) to get a feel for RF-ing and I'm actually liking the concept. So I think if this was only about fixing the "I can't see anything and I'm trying to focus" problem, then I think the many options listed in these 4 pages of conversation would work... and thank you for them as I may keep one or two of them handy! However, I *feel* that perhaps a rangefinder and all the intricacies and pros and cons that go with it would perhaps be more my "style" and if I could use it to aid in the crazy low light stuff (rather than a hindrance), then I guess that would help me justify such an expense.

A lot of food for thought so... thank you again.

 

[Xmas]

Lots of this thread is subjective & some bullshot

- but a rangefinger image itself is subjective
- as is each lens focusing

You need to try

- each rangefinder and a M2 and M3 are different!
- any lens before you buy

if you need fast you need the cosina 3.5cm /1.2 etc.

I only shot weddings with kodachrome 25 M4 35mm /1.4 & F 5cm /2... them was good old days.

But a Canon P and a /1.2 5cm are cheap and in resonable condition will leave you with compressed and pastellised shots that some brides will weap over.

 

[markbarendt]

I think that statement is actually truthful. I do seem pretty intent on trying to justify an RF purchase. I guess I like the idea of the rangefinder and, in fact, would love to use it during the entire day as well and not just for the low-light AF thing.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of shooting a complete wedding with the rangefinder (or a TLR or a Holga or a Speed Graphic or disposables you bought at the grocery store on the way to the wedding). People buy on emotion. I think your idea is a very workable idea as long as you have sold your product that way and designed your systems to support that choice. Jose Villa's work, and more importantly his business model and system, is a great inspiration for me along these lines. Using C-41 film, and then sending it out to the lab, allows him great flexibility when shooting and eliminates all the back end production work. He gets to focus most of his work time on the things that will make him money, creating good shots and selling them, essentially he hires out the rest.

The low light shooting thing though is a different animal. The fight you have picked there is with the physical laws of the universe, it isn't a fight between SLR and rangefinder. Every choice there becomes a compromise regardless of the type of camera you choose. In this realm the things that matter are shutter speed, DOF, and the reliability of the focussing system.

 

[georg16nik]

...

A monopod and an F100 or F5 with an AF-D 50mm f1.8 (or similar) would be a much better investment for "your business". Best guess, under $500 for all 3.

You are pitching big truck (F100 or F5) to a person who owns small truck (Olympus OM) but that same person now wants to replace his small truck with a car.

Also, monopod + F100 or F5 is as portable as 4x5 field camera + tripod and besides that both sucks in low light and fast action, since you are looking tru their lenses and you dont see “outside the frame”

 

[markbarendt]

You are pitching big truck (F100 or F5) to a person who owns small truck (Olympus OM) but that same person now wants to replace his small truck with a car.

Also, monopod + F100 or F5 is as portable as 4x5 field camera + tripod and besides that both sucks in low light and fast action, since you are looking tru their lenses and you dont see “outside the frame”

Giggle.

I get the size thing.

What I'm actually suggesting are tools to make commercially viable products in place of "bling".

As to the portability I get that too but it's not near as bad as you suggest. It is fast to work with and my rule is that if the shot is important, I'm on some type of pod.

The real question for the OP is, is this a business (vs a hobby) and is it going to be treated as such?

 

[mdarnton]

I agree that the whole thing is subjective. For decades I've run parallel systems, first OMs/Leica M3s, more recently Nikons/Leica M4s, and I switch back and forth essentially based on my mood. The one place where Leica has it is in the winter, when I can fit my camera on my shoulder under a coat.

If you use one or the other for a long time, you start to think it's the only way to go because you get used to it, and I've certainly been in that, but if you switch a lot, both are fine.

If you want another system, you should give it a try, but I doubt you really NEED another system. Cheaper fixed lens cameras are a great introduction, Canon and Yashica being great cameras on their own. Canon made some especially nice small RF cameras, like the QL series.
https://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm

The one thing I have found doesn't work well in the dark is autofocus--even with my one digital camera I almost always use manual with an accessory Katzeye screen.

 

[Canuck]

Coming into this a little late but have you tried another focusing screen say an all mat or all microprism one for your OM? I used to swap the screens out for the mat one on my OM's all the time. It worked for me, especially the mat under extreme low light. Besides, it is a cheap test to see if it works. I like the idea of a rangefinders also but mainly for the Leica lenses (but that is another dream ). Cheers!

 

[dugrant153]

Not yet. I tried focusing screens on the Nikon F3 and was difficult to be precise. The OM is a better viewfinder for me but maybe I will try that matte screen...

 

[John Koehrer]

I doubt any SLR is more accurate to focus than a RF especially in low light. With a RF if you can see it you can focus on it. Without hunting. It does take some practice though
Anything in this thread has been subjective(1st sentence). Personally I find the Canon just a bit small and like the Olympus 35 SP, 42mm f1.7 lens & body size it's about the same as the OM cameras.