Low light Photography, the M8 and D3

[Riccis]

Another sequence from the same wedding (also M8, Noctilux, ISO 640, f/1 @1/30s). The bride and mother of the groom doing shots...

As I saw this moment taking place, I framed the scene the best I could from where I was. I instinctively knew there was a chance the bartender may get on my way but the moment would be over if I tried to reposition myself (there were people all over). The whole thing lasted 15 seconds and I took 6 frames... Love the guys in the background...








Cheers,

[Michael Tyler]

I have to disagree with some comments here.

First is that the mirror slap of an SLR puts it at a shutter speed disadvantage against a rangefinder. I've successfully shot down to 1/2 second at an 80mm focal equivalent with no motion blur. It's difficult, but with good technique and the right subject, it's more than possible.

Second was the comment about the Canon Rebel XTi bettering the high-ISO performance of the M8. I shoot regularly with the XTi and the 20D, and it's my opinion that the M8 is dead even with those cameras, except that the quality of the noise is much better.

The D3 certainly has set a new precedent for low-light photography, and successive models from Canon and Nikon will continue the trend. But I heartily disagree that the M8 is at an image quality deficit to anything out there right now. The tonality, the color, the flexibility of the files in post, and the magical quality of the lenses, all of these have made my M8 a dream come true. I shoot with some of Canon's finest lenses, but the resulting images still lack a realism - they're too plasticky, too obviously digital. D3 files from reputable pros have done nothing to make me think Nikon has anything different to offer. Quite simply, I have never done better work and delivered better results to my clients than the last two months of owning an M8. Give me the little rowboat any day.

[blakley]

Hmmm.

I love the M8 and use it almost exclusively except for B&W film these days. However I will say that it's got some limitations in low light. The worst is a weak blue channel in tungsten light. My M8 gives me a yellow mottling in low light tungsten situations when I shoot in color. This comes from a very blotchy (not grainy - large blotches) blue channel.

I post-process DNG files using Lightroom; I'm hoping to hear that this problem doesn't occur with C1v4 or that there's something else I'm missing that will improve the color performance of the camera in low tungsten light.

I also find that (with or without filters) the camera oversaturates colors out of the gate and I've got to dial them back down in Lightroom.

[ckchen72]

Thanks Riccis for the photos and advice. Everytime i think I am going to switch, I see your photos and get second thoughts. I love the shots and the Noctilux...it's just the price is staggering where you can get a whole D3 outfit for the same price...

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by ckchen72

Thanks Riccis for the photos and advice. Everytime i think I am going to switch, I see your photos and get second thoughts. I love the shots and the Noctilux...it's just the price is staggering where you can get a whole D3 outfit for the same price...

The Nocti is also getting a price increase soon... Have you looked into a Canon 50/0.95 or 50/1.2? The D3 is a great camera, but I imagine it will be hard to shoot with it and an M8 at the same time and eventually you would just use one of them.

Thanks for your kind words.

Cheers,

[caparobertsan]

Originally Posted by Riccis

OK, this thread needs some images (specially from the M8)...

Yes, as previous posters have mentioned, the high ISO capabilities of the D3 are amazing, but the M8 is not as bad as people say.

While the D3 does give you the ability to shoot at ISO 25,000 with a 1.4 Nikon lens, in those instances where the light is so bad that your shutter speeds are 1/20s, your images are going to be cr*p anyway and I'd rather use a flash regardless of the tool I may be wielding at the moment. Please don't take my comments the wrong way and turn the thread into a big argument as I am not knocking the D3 (like I said it is a great camera I also own but only gets used for macro work on baby portraits).

As always, below is some of my work (fresh from this Saturday's amazing wedding). They were all shot with the M8 and Noctilux, ISO 640, f/1 @1/30s... Please keep in mind that these were shot at the after party (past midnight) and these folks have been having a blast at the open bar and dancing for a while (hint, hint, no static images here). Of course, by no means I am implying they are perfect or everybody's cup of tea, just showing how I use the M8 to pay the bills.









Cheers,

Hi nice shots! I love them all. M8 suit to be at place like this. D3 looks too harsh!

[sliversurger]

just by looking at ricci's wedding photos and also todd's concert photos it goes to show that no one system can be a "do all" system. both sets of photos display each system's strengths.

[ckchen72]

Thanks Riccis,

So how do you hook up the Canon lense to the m8? And does it pull the proper framelines?

Thanks,
Calvin

[Riccis]

Calvin:

You can buy Canon lenses already converted to M mount or buy a virgin one and send it off for conversion (I don't recommend a DIY solution but YMMV). The new M mount will bring the 50/75 framelines... One word of advise, it is a big lens...

Do a search here and you'll find plenty of images and feedback.

Take care,

[Photon42]

Originally Posted by ckchen72

Thanks Riccis,

So how do you hook up the Canon lense to the m8? And does it pull the proper framelines?

Thanks,
Calvin

I think the 50/1.2 is a m39 screw-mount, whereas the 0.95 has an external bayonet mount AFAIK, specific to Canon. Search photo.net for conversion threads. The adaptors scew-mount / M can be ordered for the proper frame line pair (28/90, 50/75 and 35/135 oh well, 35/24 on M8 ...).

@Riccis: I really enjoy your work a lot. The mood is captured so well, I find.

Regards
Ivo

[gravastar]

Originally Posted by Riccis

Calvin:

You can buy Canon lenses already converted to M mount or buy a virgin one and send it off for conversion (I don't recommend a DIY solution but YMMV). The new M mount will bring the 50/75 framelines... One word of advise, it is a big lens...

Do a search here and you'll find plenty of images and feedback.

Take care,

Second word of advice...... If you want to change lenses easily you'll need a flat wooden lollipop stick to reach under the lens and press down the catch on the camera . It's possible to have a lens modified with a Visoflex release incorporated, but I haven't bothered with my 0.95.

Bob.

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by Kittyphoto

I think D3 is a great camera. D3 noise is amazing still good even at iso3200. But M8 is better in color quality. D3 pictures looks flat to me when comparing to M8. I think new DSLR use CMOS to get less noise and power consumption and use new logic board process files. Still I prefer files from CCD like M8 and most Digital Back. IMHO

kitty

I think to a point that is true. D3 files come out slightly flatter and definitely not a sharp as the M8. But with a little work they can produce amazing results.

D3 with Nikon 24 f/2.8 prime. iso 200 middle of the day.

[charlesphoto99]

D3 iso 2000, 24mm AFD f4.0 1/60th. Missed the focus a bit but doesn't bother me.

Riccis - those shots are beautiful (and the subject doesn't hurt). Makes me want a Noctilux if they weren't so damn expensive. The M8 is very good in low light esp if converted to b&w. there are times one wants good clean color and reasonable f-stops and shutter speeds (as well as a wide lens). The D3 is pretty unbeatable in those circumstances.

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by charlesphoto99

I think to a point that is true. D3 files come out slightly flatter and definitely not a sharp as the M8. But with a little work they can produce amazing results.

D3 with Nikon 24 f/2.8 prime. iso 200 middle of the day.

Great shot with lovely colors!

Originally Posted by charlesphoto99

Riccis - those shots are beautiful (and the subject doesn't hurt). Makes me want a Noctilux if they weren't so damn expensive. The M8 is very good in low light esp if converted to b&w. there are times one wants good clean color and reasonable f-stops and shutter speeds (as well as a wide lens). The D3 is pretty unbeatable in those circumstances.

Get a Canon 0.95 while you can ... You are right, nothing beats the D3 if you are looking for super clean high ISO... Fortunately for me, the M8 fits my needs and style perfectly.

Cheers,

[Jamie Roberts]

Riccis knows I agree with him, though the Nocti isn't the only great fast Leica lens in the stable. The 75 Lux, which isn't that expensive used at all, is a superb lens, even in the dark, because a 1.4 lens is just no slouch, and neither is the m8 if the light is good.

Here are a couple... first a Nocti shot. This is the bride's favourite picture of her mother, who doesn't smile in pictures and always tenses up when shot... She's obviously not aware of me, and the M8 helps make that happen...

M8 f1.0 (but at ISO 320) and 1/90s. It's still dark folks--that's like shooting with my Canon 2.8 zoom at ISO 2500 So the Nocti or the Canon .95 really do open up shooting...

593_L1022931_nocti.jpg

And here's the 75 Lux at ISO 640 1/90 in a very dark covered bridge--just a bit of light coming from the entrance. I'm at f2.0 here. I probably pushed this file at least a stop in post, but you'd never know it. Colour prints extremely well, though muted, in this shot.

0069_L1030418_m8.jpg

[lxlim]

Great pictures. Very inspiring.

Thanks.

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

This is the bride's favourite picture of her mother, who doesn't smile in pictures and always tenses up when shot... She's obviously not aware of me, and the M8 helps make that happen...

Yep, while my clients commission me for my hands off style, there are always some guests that are more traditional. The M8 has helped me tremendously to make me more invisible, if you see me at a wedding you wouldn't know I'm the photographer since I don't stick out with pouches, belts and your regular black outfit, instead I match the dress code of the party (shorts and linen shirts on a beach, tux in fancy black tie affair, hip and modern in cool South Beach locations, etc). Prior to using Ms, my camera was what singled me out as the photographer, not anymore...

Nice shots, Jamie!

[WPalank]

Riccis,
I always enjoy seeing your work!
Cheers,

[Kittyphoto]

Originally Posted by charlesphoto99

I think to a point that is true. D3 files come out slightly flatter and definitely not a sharp as the M8. But with a little work they can produce amazing results.

D3 with Nikon 24 f/2.8 prime. iso 200 middle of the day.

Agree! Nice pictures.

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by Riccis

Yep, while my clients commission me for my hands off style, there are always some guests that are more traditional. The M8 has helped me tremendously to make me more invisible, if you see me at a wedding you wouldn't know I'm the photographer since I don't stick out with pouches, belts and your regular black outfit, instead I match the dress code of the party (shorts and linen shirts on a beach, tux in fancy black tie affair, hip and modern in cool South Beach locations, etc). Prior to using Ms, my camera was what singled me out as the photographer, not anymore...

Nice shots, Jamie!

I totally agree. I don't shoot weddings for a living, but am often the go to guy for friends. I've always shot them with M's (film and/or digital) and my trusty Rolleiflex. Also might throw a Mamiya 6/7 into the mix. Going to other weddings and seeing photographers tromp around with their giant dslrs and 70-200 zooms is usually pretty obnoxious. That said, if you are an obnoxious photographer you are an obnoxious photographer - the choice of gear probably isn't going to minimize that. It's all how you carry yourself.

But I think having the D3 in the bag would be nice. There are times where the lighting is just crap, and no f 1.0 lens or flash is going to make a difference (in fact the flash can make it worse by showing off the place they are trying to hide with crappy light). At that point nobody will care except the bride and groom afterwards because you failed to deliver a decent pic of them kissing on the altar. Lets face it - you are the photographer. It's nice to be invisible etc, but also you shouldn't get too hung up on it to the detriment of not getting the shots.