Noctilux, Summilux, low-light

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by 35mmdelux

With 3200 ISO even my 28mm f/2.8 can see in available darkness. Factor in my 35mm/1.4 and a little fudge and I am good to go.

A lot depends on what you mean by 'available darkness', and how much shadow detail you want. If it's a bright disembodied face against a black background, wild underexposure is possible and the face may be bright enough to focus on.

But around the bonfire on Bastille Day on Monday I was shooting ISO 2500 (the M8 maximum, and only 1/3 stop less than EI 3200) at f/1 and still getting exposures of 1/15 and longer in some cases. My original point was that I seem simultaneously to run out of (a) enough light to see to focus and (b) enough light to hand hold the camera reliably.

In other words, faster lenses or faster film or both wouldn't be much use, even if I could focus, because I'd need a tripod anyway...

Cheers,

Roger

[Krosya]

Originally Posted by 35mmdelux

With 3200 ISO even my 28mm f/2.8 can see in available darkness. Factor in my 35mm/1.4 and a little fudge and I am good to go.

How dark is your darkness?
This was shot in a cave with a Nokton 35mm/1.2, wide open. Iso 1600. Dont remember shutter speed, but about 1/15sec or so. Dont know about you, but I dont think I could do better without a tripod:



I absolutely love cv 35/1.2 lens - absolutely great glass - delivers results I like every time!

[Pherdinand]

Camera shake and wrong focus add up in a weird way...
I prefer having at least one of them right.

In the low contrast low light situation you describe, you might be better off with an active autofocus of the type Konica Hexar AF. Can focus in total darkness just as quick as in "f/16 light" ...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Pherdinand

Camera shake and wrong focus add up in a weird way...
I prefer having at least one of them right.

In the low contrast low light situation you describe, you might be better off with an active autofocus of the type Konica Hexar AF. Can focus in total darkness just as quick as in "f/16 light" ...

Yes, but at that point you'd need flash, and I'd rather miss the shot. Again, that was part of the point: that what I can focus, and what I can hand-hold without flash, run out surprisingly close together.

As Leicasniper says, some form of support, and maybe even a slower lens, at some point will become a better idea.

Cheers,

R.

[ferider]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yes, but at that point you'd need flash, and I'd rather miss the shot. Again, that was part of the point: that what I can focus, and what I can hand-hold without flash, run out surprisingly close together.

As Leicasniper says, some form of support, and maybe even a slower lens, at some point will become a better idea.

Cheers,

R.

Pherdi is right, the Hexar AF is a great low light camera, no flash and support needed - depending on the desired outcome, of course. The 35/2 together with the lens shutter makes it very easy to handhold. This was in on ISO 400, and very dark. Would have been hard to catch the right moment at focus with an M (at least for me):



Roland.

[furcafe]

Your Bastille Day example is pretty typical of many, if not most, of the "available darkness" situations I find myself in. There seems to be a tacit agreement among restaurants & bars everywhere to keep light levels exactly 2 or 3 stops below what I would prefer w/the M8 or ISO 1600 film.

Currently (knock wood), my night vision has held up enough that I can still readily see & focus in light levels that would only give me 1/4th or 1/2 sec. @ f/1 & ISO 2500/3200. Since most of my subjects are people, not inanimate objects/landscapes, a tripod (or beerpod) is usually of no help; for shooting people in conversation, for example, the slowest usable shutter speed in my experience is around 1/8th sec. Hence I am among those who dream of a dRF w/the high ISO performance of the current high-end dSLRs.

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

A lot depends on what you mean by 'available darkness', and how much shadow detail you want. If it's a bright disembodied face against a black background, wild underexposure is possible and the face may be bright enough to focus on.

But around the bonfire on Bastille Day on Monday I was shooting ISO 2500 (the M8 maximum, and only 1/3 stop less than EI 3200) at f/1 and still getting exposures of 1/15 and longer in some cases. My original point was that I seem simultaneously to run out of (a) enough light to see to focus and (b) enough light to hand hold the camera reliably.

In other words, faster lenses or faster film or both wouldn't be much use, even if I could focus, because I'd need a tripod anyway...

Cheers,

Roger

[marke]

I'm learning a lot reading through this thread. I've been wondering for quite some time, as I've lusted over owning a Noctilux, whether or not it would be more useful to me over my Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph. Now I'm pretty much decided that I don't have to take out a mortgage for a new lens!

Here's one with my Summilux 50/f1.4 pre-asph, taken with Fuji Natura 1600. Exposed at 800 ISO, f1.4, and (if I remember correctly) about 1/4 second. The lights are L.E.D., part of an installation at the Milwaukee Art Museum. I honestly couldn't even make out the subject's face (my wife). I just focused on her profile and told her to be still. The lens/film could see what I couldn't.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by marke

The lens/film could see what I couldn't.

This is indeed the basis of the entire question.

Cheers,

R.