Jump to content
paul.bridges.3388

Low light: M10 (A7III, SL or Q2)?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Advice needed, please!

I enjoy shooting environmental & headshot family portraits.  Preferred setup was SL + Summilux 35/1.4 (loving the vast EVF,  magnification and focus peaking).  Admittedly, it was somewhat unwieldy and didn’t make full use of the large AF body.

I’ve since had the SL body stolen (ugh!) and replaced it with a Q2.  But, the low-light performance of the Q2 just can’t match the 35/1.4.

So, I’m considering my options to supplement the Q2.  I guess the M10 is the natural choice.  But, with my corrected vision, I’m somewhat intimidated by the RF focus.  And, again, I’m not really making best use of the (expensive!) body if the Q2 is my default option.  It feels too close to the Q2 (28/1.7) to be dropping another £6k just for indoor shots.

Any thoughts on a body that will be reserved for static, available light portraits where dreamy image quality is the priority?I won’t be printing large.  

As I see it, options include another SL (but SL2 may be imminent...), the S1 (but it’s even bigger....), the Sony A7III (cheaper...but will it give the image quality?) and the M10.

Or should I be selling the 35/1.4 and going another route altogether?

thanks!

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have an M10 and CL, have pondered getting an SL for a very long time now, had thought of using my M lenses and just maybe getting the 24-90.  Then I just have to keep reminding myself I disliked the heft of my Canon 5D4 - why do I want to start carrying that load again?  

The Panasonic offerings look great, but not for me, I waited for them to come out, held an S1 and bought a Sony A73 (never having seen or handled one) for the times when I want FF and AF, the EVF is good enough but far from the quality of the SL or Panasonics, it has IBIS even with M lens, magnify and focus peaking, all these things I'm sure you know.   I've had it around a month now and honestly I'm not sure why I steered away from Sony for so long.  Probably because of all the talk about horrendous menu's etc, well, I've just set it up for how I shoot and now pretty much have forgotten about the menu's, they really aren't all that bad anyway.  Cluttered buttons?  Looking at the back of the Nikon mirrorless offerings, and the Panasonics, every bit as bad (to me). 

It seems that you are more worried about size/weight than anything else, exactly my position.  Difference in IQ on all the camera's mentioned are pretty minimal.  It's far more important to have a camera that feels right in your hand and that you are happy to carry around for long periods of time.  Your needs as far as the available light, dreamy portraits are concerned sounds more like a Lens decision than a body one.

Good luck with your choice, good to have so many great options out there at the moment.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Boojay
Grammer - still bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

Advice needed, please!

I enjoy shooting environmental & headshot family portraits.  Preferred setup was SL + Summilux 35/1.4 (loving the vast EVF,  magnification and focus peaking).  Admittedly, it was somewhat unwieldy and didn’t make full use of the large AF body.

I’ve since had the SL body stolen (ugh!) and replaced it with a Q2.  But, the low-light performance of the Q2 just can’t match the 35/1.4.

So, I’m considering my options to supplement the Q2.  I guess the M10 is the natural choice.  But, with my corrected vision, I’m somewhat intimidated by the RF focus.  And, again, I’m not really making best use of the (expensive!) body if the Q2 is my default option.  It feels too close to the Q2 (28/1.7) to be dropping another £6k just for indoor shots.

Any thoughts on a body that will be reserved for static, available light portraits where dreamy image quality is the priority?I won’t be printing large.  

As I see it, options include another SL (but SL2 may be imminent...), the S1 (but it’s even bigger....), the Sony A7III (cheaper...but will it give the image quality?) and the M10.

Or should I be selling the 35/1.4 and going another route altogether?

thanks!

Paul

M10 with 35 f1.4 and the Visoflex..that should solve your problem...anyways in low/available light Manual focus is better than hunting AF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, frame-it said:

M10 with 35 f1.4 and the Visoflex..that should solve your problem...anyways in low/available light Manual focus is better than hunting AF

That’s helpful - thanks!  I confess that it somewhat irks me to add a Visoflex to that beautiful M10 body.  But if the results are that much better then I’ll go there.  Couple of questions:

1. Is the Visoflex significantly easier to nail focus than the M10 rangefinder in low light?

2. How does ISO hold up on the M10 (compared with SL, Q2, etc.)?

3.  How does the resolution of the Visoflex compare with the SL?

Thanks again!

paul

Edited by paul.bridges.3388

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you do the 'dreamy portrait' look in photoshop (search youtube for 'dreamy portrait photoshop').

When you say 'low light performance' do you mean acquiring focus or high ISO noise issues. If it's the latter then dreamy post processing should help with that. Or, noise reduction software might have the answers you are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, PaulJohn said:

I would suggest that you do the 'dreamy portrait' look in photoshop (search youtube for 'dreamy portrait photoshop').

When you say 'low light performance' do you mean acquiring focus or high ISO noise issues. If it's the latter then dreamy post processing should help with that. Or, noise reduction software might have the answers you are looking for.

Well, it was the wonderfully natural look from the SL that so pleased me.  So, not sure that Photoshop is the answer.  But, willing to give it a go. It’s noise and colour issues from the Q2 that bother me.  Tweaking for this in post seems to breakdown the pleasing skin tones etc. But will play with Photoshop.

Edited by paul.bridges.3388

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

It’s noise and colour issues...

I moved from the M10 to the Sony A7Riii but for different reasons. My 2 yr old grand daughter is way too fast for my rangefinder skills. Before she started darting everywhere the M10 was great. The A7Riii has a better viewfinder than the A7iii and the high ISO is pretty much as good as it gets on full frame. I use a Batis 25mm and 50mm 1.4 G which coupled with the new eye AF firmware gives a very high in focus keeper ratio. I do miss the M10 for shooting pleasure but I have an M246 and M-A and "one can have too many cameras" (anonymous). I probably get at least 2 stops improvement over the M10 due to the sensor and the ability to shoot wide open without risking out of focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

It’s noise and colour issues...

Then go for the A7III, it will definitely give you more leverage in noise and shadow recovery, if that's what you're looking for.

Eye-autofocus works fine in low light situations too, at least according to my personal experience.

As a bonus, you can also use your Summilux on it. AFAIK it won't perform well in the corners, but if you're shooting portraits it may not matter to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

i have the A7RIII, M10 + 35 Lux +50mm APO, and the new Q2.

My 2 years old son is now pretty fast and it is very difficult to get the focus in Low light and fast-moving situations.

 

Here my sort experience:

M10 + 50mm APO = Best image quality 

M10 + 35mm Lux = Best allrounder and good in low light ( stills )

Q2 = Good allrounder, bad in low light and bad for fast focus moments 

A7RIII = Best autofocus and lowlight performance.

 

The A7RIII is, in my opinion, the ugliest camera on the market.

I hate it in many ways; it big, heavy and has a lot of buttons and menu points.

But if you have fast moving objects or persons it could be the tool you looking for.

 

My tip, try them all and find out which one suite to you best.

I tried the SL of course, but in terms of the technology level of Sony, Leica is many years behind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TrickyMrT said:

it big, heavy

I agree with many of your points but it only weighs 7 grams more than the M10, of course if your putting a dirty great f2.8 zoom on it that alone will add probably nearly a kilogram! but mines just fine using f1.8 - 2.8 Sony or Zeiss primes.

 

To the OP - 

Your not going to get the experience you seek without getting another SL, Nothing else has that huge, immersive EVF, or one with that level of resolution. Even the A7RIII which has an excellent EVF still falls short of the SL's EVF, so maybe pick up a new one or hang on and see what the SL2 brings to the table?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Boojay said:

It seems that you are more worried about size/weight than anything else, exactly my position.  Difference in IQ on all the camera's mentioned are pretty minimal.  It's far more important to have a camera that feels right in your hand and that you are happy to carry around for long periods of time.

Great advice, thanks.  Looks like a similar decision process except, for me, that the Q2 has solved the portability question (for now).  It’s the decision around the low light situations.

I’ve nailed some MF portraits of my kids with the SL and 35/1.4 Summilux (in my dark oak panelled room living room) that are nothing short of astonishing.  And, here I refer to the colours, “artistic” resolution & bokeh.  Beautiful OOC.  This is what i fail to get with the Q2 and I’m fearful of missing with the Sony.  I guess that the heft of the S1 isn’t so much of an huge issue for these somewhat static situations...but it seems counterintuitive to go for such a large camera (with AF capability) for these MF situations.  Hence my curiosity about the M10 capability.

So, with a Q2 and a manual focus Summilux in my bag, which way to go?

 

Edited by paul.bridges.3388

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, magixaxeman said:

Your not going to get the experience you seek without getting another SL, Nothing else has that huge, immersive EVF, or one with that level of resolution.

In what way does the SL have superior “resolution”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Then go for the A7III, it will definitely give you more leverage in noise and shadow recovery, if that's what you're looking for.

Eye-autofocus works fine in low light situations too, at least according to my personal experience.

As a bonus, you can also use your Summilux on it. AFAIK it won't perform well in the corners, but if you're shooting portraits it may not matter to you.

I’m looking to minimally tweak.  Photos out of the SL with 35/1.4 really didn’t need work and that’s what I’m seeking.  Just wondering if there’s a more up to date camera that will give me this rather than sinking another $5k on a 4-year old camera.  On the other hand, if the Sony files need considerable work in post, then it may not be the answer (however forgiving the files are).  

Thanks for your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

On the other hand, if the Sony files need considerable work in post, then it may not be the answer  (however forgiving the files are).  

For me they do need work but so did the Leica files. They are quite different in colour and rendering. Lenses also play a big part as I'm sure you know. No files should need considerable work in post once a preset has been created to your liking. If you want SOOC files to your specific taste then the only way to know is to go to a store with an SD card and shoot in each pic profile (or rent a camera for a day or two?). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rent or demo an S1 and see if the ergonomics appeal.  By most reports, people like the balance and handling as much as the SL, albeit with buttons.  The IBIS alone should give you better low light stability than the SL, and no lens adapter needed.  And the EVF is state of the art.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

 

As I see it, options include another SL (but SL2 may be imminent...), the S1 (but it’s even bigger....), the Sony A7III (cheaper...but will it give the image quality?) and the M10.

I'd run with another SL (lightly used from a dealer if you're concerned with the value drop when the SL2 comes along). It's a superb camera, you already have the lens & the 'muscle memory' to use it quickly, and you like the image quality. A different camera will need some post-processing tweaks to get the same results.

btw, I wouldn't assume that the M10 has better high ISO than the SL. I need to use ISO 5000 on my M10 to obtain the same shutter speeds as my Q1 at ISO 1600, and Sean Reid reckons that the Q1 has 'better' high ISO than the Q2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am 25.4.2019 um 03:25 schrieb hemlock:

I need to use ISO 5000 on my M10 to obtain the same shutter speeds as my Q1 at ISO 1600,...

🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 8:11 PM, paul.bridges.3388 said:

I’m looking to minimally tweak.  Photos out of the SL with 35/1.4 really didn’t need work and that’s what I’m seeking.  Just wondering if there’s a more up to date camera that will give me this rather than sinking another $5k on a 4-year old camera.  On the other hand, if the Sony files need considerable work in post, then it may not be the answer (however forgiving the files are).  

Thanks for your help!

Consider Nikon Z6 or Z7, very much up to date, small, capable, good AF, eye tracking firmware update coming in May to bring it in Sony AF territory, good with most current M lenses and native AF zooms and primes are excellent. Apparently new discounts are round the corner, you can get a camera and lens kit for a steal compared to equivalent Leica.  M10 EVF will not give you instant response to track people in poor light, RF much better for that.

I have traded my SL601 for Z7 a month ago, absolutly no regrets, body is not much bigger than my M246, general consensus is that Z is more ergonomic than Sony Alpha, however button arrangement and control is very personal.  Excellent images at ISO 6400, didn’t brother to try higher which goes up to 25600 or 51000 when pushed.  For static subjects or slow movers you also get benefit of IBIS.  If you are into long exposure photgraphy compulsory LENR with Leica cameras can be switched of with Z cameras.

with respect to low light shooting old trick from M9 day’s was to underexpose at lower ISO and push in post processing, a desktop computer with good processing software have more processing power than digital camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 8:38 PM, paul.bridges.3388 said:

In what way does the SL have superior “resolution”?

Acuity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 1:51 PM, TrickyMrT said:

Hi,

i have the A7RIII, M10 + 35 Lux +50mm APO, and the new Q2.

My 2 years old son is now pretty fast and it is very difficult to get the focus in Low light and fast-moving situations.

 

Here my sort experience:

M10 + 50mm APO = Best image quality 

M10 + 35mm Lux = Best allrounder and good in low light ( stills )

Q2 = Good allrounder, bad in low light and bad for fast focus moments 

A7RIII = Best autofocus and lowlight performance.

 

The A7RIII is, in my opinion, the ugliest camera on the market.

I hate it in many ways; it big, heavy and has a lot of buttons and menu points.

But if you have fast moving objects or persons it could be the tool you looking for.

 

My tip, try them all and find out which one suite to you best.

I tried the SL of course, but in terms of the technology level of Sony, Leica is many years behind.

That depends on what “technology” is of interest for your photography. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...