Low light Photography, the M8 and D3

[arthury]

Originally Posted by ckchen72

Hello everyone!
[..]
The Nikon is bigger and clunkier and I assume you can't handhold as well as an M8.
[...]
Calvin

That's far from true. I can safely say that all of the Nikon modern pro bodies since the F5 have extremely comfortable ergonomics. They are a lot easier to hold than an M8 unless your have installed a grip on your M8.

I use both systems and they cannot replace each other. They have strengths in their own ways: yes, even for weddings.

If you are just focusing on low light situations, the D3 is light years ahead. There's no comparison, even with the Canon pro bodies.

If you use a really fast lens on the M8 in dim light at ISO 320 and below, you can obtain images with color subtleties which the D3 cannot achieve. The limitation is that the your subject should not be moving.

[mat_mcdermott]

Originally Posted by arthury

I can safely say that all of the Nikon modern pro bodies since the F5 have extremely comfortable ergonomics. They are a lot easier to hold than an M8 unless your have installed a grip on your M8.

Having relatively small hands for a man (I'm 5'7") I actually find that cameras with built in grips are more awkward for me. The contours of the grip do mold to the hand nicely but I find that it feels big in my hand, like holding a tennis racquet (or golf club, baseball bat, whatever) with a grip one size too large. You can use it (and I do some of the time) but it's not 100% right. For you (and perhaps the majority) the current molded grips are great, but give me the M without a grip or an old SLR without a motor drive any day. At least with the M, both of us can get what we like. For what it's worth, I can handhold my M at least two stops slow than my Nikon: which is probably the result of the ergonomics of the camera in relation to my hand, the lack of mirror slap, the overall weight of the camera, rather than any one thing.

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by arthury

....
If you use a really fast lens on the M8 in dim light at ISO 320 and below, you can obtain images with color subtleties which the D3 cannot achieve. The limitation is that the your subject should not be moving.

That's being my experience too. My 1DmkIII nice as it is just doesn't give me as good a result in terms of colour and resolution at ISO 320. Even at ISO 640, I would prefer the M8's files.

I believe the D3 is definitely better than my 1DmkIII in low light but for most of my work the 1D is good enough, I can always wait for Canon to catch up. The M8 is doing the heavy lifting for my bottomline at the moment. Something I would not have believed a year ago.

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by charlesphoto99

{snipped}

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.

I completely agree with you...Having a dSLR is very handy, and usually for exactly the shots you're mentioning. For me, it's more about reach, though, than anything else; the 180R Elmarit or the Canon longer zooms are nice to have at a ceremony. If I was buying a dSLR today, it would very probably be a D3. Nikon's got some great glas too.

As for crummy light, well, I dunno... While I'm a freak for available light, sometimes the best light available is my flash (that's an old joke, but it's still correct). I realise it can take time to set up, but honestly the M8 and an autoflash is pretty freaking great, and fast too. Not as fast, I suppose, as ETTL and whatever Nikon calls their TTL system, but fast enough for me (as in once its set I don't mess with it much).

I'm always surprised at just how little flash output you need at ISO 640 and f 1.6, and, if used correctly (hardly ever directly) how big an improvement it really makes

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

I completely agree with you...Having a dSLR is very handy, and usually for exactly the shots you're mentioning. For me, it's more about reach, though, than anything else; the 180R Elmarit or the Canon longer zooms are nice to have at a ceremony. If I was buying a dSLR today, it would very probably be a D3. Nikon's got some great glas too.

As for crummy light, well, I dunno... While I'm a freak for available light, sometimes the best light available is my flash (that's an old joke, but it's still correct). I realise it can take time to set up, but honestly the M8 and an autoflash is pretty freaking great, and fast too. Not as fast, I suppose, as ETTL and whatever Nikon calls their TTL system, but fast enough for me (as in once its set I don't mess with it much).

I'm always surprised at just how little flash output you need at ISO 640 and f 1.6, and, if used correctly (hardly ever directly) how big an improvement it really makes

I'm actually big on flash - in fact the book I have coming out this fall is almost all flash (b&w medium format with a Quantum and/or Vivitar 285). I need to play around a little more with the M8 and flash. I would get good results with the SF20 and my M7 but not with the M8 for some reason. A bit wary of investing in an SF24 because of the whole pre-flash thing. Just picked up a Nikon SB800 so will have to try that.

I guess it's mostly that developing world crummy light I like most! When there's actual color in the image to make up for it. Crummy light in off white halls is another thing.

[jaapv]

Charles, if you really want a good flash: the Metz MZ3 on auto works a draem on the M8. Costs next to nothing on E-bay

[Photon42]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Charles, if you really want a good flash: ...

he's already got a SB800

I hate preflash as well and I'm very happy with my Nikon flashes SB22 and 27. Their footprint is smaller than the pro-size flashes and both use AA cells. The latter has quite a number of useful manual apertures.

Regards
Ivo

[Tina Manley]

I've just skimmed this thread but I don't think anybody has mention the reason I use M8's and fast Leica lenses and avoid flash. Flash attracts attention to you. There is no way anybody can avoid looking at that bright light going off. That doesn't matter for wedding or event photography when you expect people to be looking at the camera, but for any kind of true candid or documentary photography, the photographer really wants to be invisible. The only way I know to be invisible is to sit quietly in a corner with a Leica M camera and fast lenses and wait until everybody forgets you are there. I used to use M3's, 4's, 6's, 7's with fast film - now I use M8's and digital. I still think Leica M's are the best cameras for low light. Have you tried using ISO 160 or 320 and underexposing by 2? For low light, you want the photo underexposed anyway. That's what I used to do with film. It's dark. It should look dark. With ISO 160, underexposing by 2 stops and the Noctilux or Summilux, the M8 can take photos in the dark. I like them better than any low light photos I get from the Canon 5D or 1DMII.

Just my opinion.

Tina Manley
Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

[Riccis]

Originally Posted by Tina Manley

There is no way anybody can avoid looking at that bright light going off. That doesn't matter for wedding or event photography when you expect people to be looking at the camera...
Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

It does matter to me since this is not my style at all... The more unobstrusive the better...

Ciao,

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by Tina Manley

I've just skimmed this thread but I don't think anybody has mention the reason I use M8's and fast Leica lenses and avoid flash. Flash attracts attention to you. There is no way anybody can avoid looking at that bright light going off. That doesn't matter for wedding or event photography when you expect people to be looking at the camera, but for any kind of true candid or documentary photography, the photographer really wants to be invisible. The only way I know to be invisible is to sit quietly in a corner with a Leica M camera and fast lenses and wait until everybody forgets you are there. I used to use M3's, 4's, 6's, 7's with fast film - now I use M8's and digital. I still think Leica M's are the best cameras for low light. Have you tried using ISO 160 or 320 and underexposing by 2? For low light, you want the photo underexposed anyway. That's what I used to do with film. It's dark. It should look dark. With ISO 160, underexposing by 2 stops and the Noctilux or Summilux, the M8 can take photos in the dark. I like them better than any low light photos I get from the Canon 5D or 1DMII.

Just my opinion.

Tina Manley
Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

I agree. The M8 can take fine pics up to 1250 that have a certain quality of their own due to need of low shutter speeds and wide open lenses. But the M8 just doesn't go as far as it could with low light when compared to the D3 esp when you are limited to "normal" focal length lenses for need of speed.

This is one of the few shots I could find with the D3 where I actually had to go up this high of iso so far but it's one that a magazine editor wouldn't even blink about using.

D3 iso 5000, 17-35 @ 19mm, f3.3 1/125th second. Default LR NR.

Anyway, enough defending the D3! They are both great cameras and we are lucky to have this technology (and be able to afford it). I honestly wish I could shoot everything with the M8 but alas it just can't be. Maybe with the M9. As it is after an eye opening and long overdue trip to the periodontist today I see more equipment being sold than acquired, at least for the near future.

[farnz]

Originally Posted by Photon42

... the 0.95 has an external bayonet mount AFAIK, specific to Canon.

Yes, they called it a 'breechlock' mount that needs to be removed for an M-mount to be fitted.

Pete.

[tom0511]

I also use both (M8 and D3) and have to agree that the D3 gives me a freedom regarding available light I have never had with the M8.
With the M8 in color its like use 640ISO and I feel pretty good but often I had to use f1.4 even though I would rather use f2.0 for more DOF.
Not only gives the D3 2,5 steps ISO advantage, the AF also makes it much easier to handle shallow DOF.
I also cant experience the comments regarding color ...IMO its easier with the D3 to get correct and good color. The M8 I often try different profiles in c1 until I get the colors in the image I want.
I love the M8 for its size, feel, great ISO 640 quality and great lenses (like the 50/1.4asph for example).
But there are some limitations compared to a D3 with the right lenses.

[ckchen72]

Charles,

I looked at your site and liked it a lot. I was wondering with your cypher, and touch me O'm sick portfolio what you were shooting with.

Thanks,
Calvin

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by ckchen72

Charles,

I looked at your site and liked it a lot. I was wondering with your cypher, and touch me O'm sick portfolio what you were shooting with.

Thanks,
Calvin

Thanks Calvin,

For my early rock work used a number of different Nikon bodies and usually a 24mm f2 lens and trusty Vivitar flash. A few back stage things are with an M6 (like Eddie Vedder in the back of the bus).

For the breakdancers I used a mix of Mamiya 6/7 medium format cameras and a Hasselblad SWC. For flash I used Vivitar 285 at first and then switched to a Quantum T2.

I still prefer film (I own an Imacon 646 so dealing with it is not a problem) but the M8 and D3 has really upped the game.

Charles

[leicawanabe]

Big and clunky? Can't hold steady?

Here is what is great about the Nikon. If you do not want to shoot below a certain shutter speed, you can tell the camera to boost the ISO in order to compensate. AND with the GREAT noise handling capabilities of the D3, this is really a no brainer.

I was playing yesterday with the D3 and a Zeiss 50 f2 macro. The following was hand held, shot at 1/50th f4 and ISO 1400.

New Zeiss 50mm macro on it's way - NikonCameraUser

I'm sorry. But the edge the M once held for slower shutter picture taking is no longer the case.

[dalippe]

While fast glass is more common and optically superior for Leica M than for Nikon SLR, good high ISO performance has an advantage over fast glass as a means for shooting in low light-- it gives you control over depth of field by allowing you to stop down rather than always having to shoot wide open.

David

[Albert4321]

nice shots everyone!

Just ordered a D3 yesterday. Now the question is, what lens to buy? Nikon does not have fast pro primes like Canon do. I did order the 105mm micro VR with the D3 though.

I guess I would get the Nikon 24--70, but I did not like my Canon 24-70. Zeiss 28mm /f2 seems interesting.

comments?

[dalippe]

Originally Posted by Albert4321

nice shots everyone!

Just ordered a D3 yesterday. Now the question is, what lens to buy? Nikon does not have fast pro primes like Canon do. I did order the 105mm micro VR with the D3 though.

I guess I would get the Nikon 24--70, but I did not like my Canon 24-70. Zeiss 28mm /f2 seems interesting.

comments?

Well, I don't know what kind of shooting you do. But two obvious candidate fast primes are the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. The 24-70 also seems like the obvious choice as a general purpose zoom even though you say you don't like the Canon version.

David

[leicawanabe]

Albert, congrats on the D3. If you get a macro don't settle for anything other than the Zeiss 100 f2 macro. It is simply AMAZING!

[marknorton]

Yes, why should the fact you don't like the Canon 24-70 influence your decision about a lens for your Nikon?

The new 14-24 and 24-70 are the obvious choices for a D3; I also like the 17-35 f2.8 which is the smallest of the three. Great general purpose lenses all.

Buy primes according to specific need - I use 28/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4 plus micro and T/S.