Leica M6 is "much" easier to focus in low light than Contax SLR?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi,

Three cameras used, Nikon F3, Contax Rx and Leica M6.

I tried to take several shots of my one year old son last night. I first pick my Nikon F3 with zoom lens. I can not tell if it's in focus or not, very difficult. I pick up the Contax RX. The viewfinder is much brighter, 30% eaiser to focus. I then pick up the Leica M6. I don't need to struggle anymore. I was getting many good shots with the 90MM F2.8 lens w/out any effort. I did not notice the big advantage of the Leica M6 for shooting under low light condtion until I have a chance to compare it with other manual SLRs. I know auto-focus SLRs should make up the disadvantage. I am just a little disappointed because SLR is just much bigger and heavier but does not perform better under such condtion.

Please comment,

Thanks,

Chris

-- Chris Lee (rangefinders@yahoo.com), November 30, 2001

Answers

The F3 is very easy to focus with the grid/matte screens and better than 2.8 primes, which I use. IMO all SLR's are a pain to focus with non-2.8 zooms, and I'm sure you had a prime on the RX. A brighter focus screen doesn't always ensure easier focus, and an SLR's effective baseline changes with lens, so ease of focus will follow lenses more than the cameras. After all, you are looking Through-The- Lens, remember? Of course a crappy screen is a crappy screen, I understand.

To get by all that crap(looks like there's alot of it) and make it easy and swift to focus, you would do well to use the M. Autofocus SLR's won't cure it. Leave those gadget bombs for the wildlife geeks.

What do you want for your F3?

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), November 30, 2001.


Chris,

the Leica finder has almost no light reduction (in other words around f1.0). In contrast to that, a SLR looks through the lens. If this is not a f1.0 lens, the light reaching the screen of course is darker. The screen itself takes also away some light, so this might be another weak point in the SLR.

Bear in mind that a f1.4 is only half as bright as a leica finder, a f2.8 only lets through 1/8th of light. Using SLRs the lens itself is the limiting factor for low-light-use. Though the contax might be easy to use given you have one of these nice 85/1.2 lenses that came out in limited numbers (one is right now up on german ebay for a mere 1700$ starting bid), though the 85/1.4 might be almost as easy to focus.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), November 30, 2001.


The 851.4 CZ was not at all the solution in my experience - the contax screen/lens combination is just not at all good in low light. The r8/801.4 combination is a lot better (but also hugely expensive). Regrettably, it's not even just about screen brightness - it's more to do with contrast which is why a replacement Beattie screen is pretty ineffectual in my view. My nikon f100 and 85 afd was also not great in low light (in af mode) but because of the far greater contrast and brightness of the viewfinder it was a whole lot easier to focus manually. The RX finder was slightly "misty" or "blurred" (and I had 3 of them!!) so that in the end I gave up with a system I very much liked. I've subsequently tried out the N1 which has a similarly iffy v/f contrast/clarity and whose a/f seemed to me pretty hit and miss (this may have been because it focuses on diagonals rather than verticals and this was something I wasn't used to). Don't really know what the solution is, if you find out, let me know...

-- stephen jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), November 30, 2001.

I agree that the M6 is quite easy to focus in low light levels, and generally far better in that respect than SLRs.

On the flip side of the coin, if memory serves me, later Nikons (F5, D1, not sure about F4s) will use a pulse of infrared from an SB-28 if the light level is too low for the AF mechanism to function properly. Of course, if you don't want flash, you're stuck. I'm not sure that keeping the shutter release half-depressed, and turning off the SB-28 would work, but that might be worth a try.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), November 30, 2001.


>>>Autofocus SLR's won't cure it. Leave those gadget bombs for the wildlife geeks<<<

Ickk! No thanks.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), November 30, 2001.



I agree with Doug that the AF SLR's are nonessential for wildlife. In all the years I've owned them, I've only found AF indispensible for shooting birds flying (or children running) straight at the camera. Otherwise, I can do better without it. In fact, rather than keep 2 sets of expensive SLRs I have decided to consolidate and use the R system for wildlife photography. I'll keep a small AF kit mostly for my wife to use, and for me if I want to photograph kids or wedding receptions.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 30, 2001.

The Leica-M finder IS brighter (and doesn't change brightness as you change lenses), but I think the real focusing advantage comes from the binary quality of the split-image rangefinder - it's either aligned or it isn't - while with an SLR screen (even the SL(2)) you are watching a continuum unfold - it's soft, it's sharper, it's sharpest??, no it's soft again.

SLR split-prisms help, but get dark in low light or with slow lenses.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001.


Kai,

If the leica finder is equivelant to f 1.0 than the Voigtlander seperate finders must be 0.5 or less? I find the leica finder cuts alot of light, of course not compared to SLR's

-- Artur (aciesi8772@aol.com), November 30, 2001.


Chris,

I'm having a similar experience with a 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor. I'm having a very rough time trying to focus it in low light--the kind of light you'd want it for in the first place--on my FE2, with the combination groundglass/microprism/split image center. In bright light, it's no problem at all. But neither is an f/3/5.

One of the staff at the dealer says it's due to the lens having low contrast. Seems to me this lens isn't the low-cost answer to the Noctilux, after all.

Actually, I think my M2 might be the easiest to focus in low light, maybe easier than my M6. I might be happier to get rid of the Nikkor and look for an old 50 Lux (?) I think f/1.4 woud be enough for me; and I believe the M2 or M6 is really the right camera for low light.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 30, 2001.


Sorry if I offended you Doug, but I see way too much wildlife pics by local pros, and as a result, I'm a bit turned off. Maybe I'm just a bit impatient. I would agree too, Jay, that AF is not essential for this kind of work. However,I have the suspicion that AF would lead to a higher percentage of keepers in this hit-or-miss practice. I am not too fond of AF either, but here it makes sense, IMO.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 01, 2001.


Don't know about the Contax, but low light focussing capability is why I use Leica M.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 01, 2001.

"the Leica finder has almost no light reduction (in other words around f1.0). "

Mount a brightline finder on your M6 and compare it to the regular finder. The regular finder will look very dim by comparision. I don't know about f 1.0 (why does f 1.0 relate to undimmed light transmission anyway?), but the Leica finder isn't all that bright. A modern brightscreen on say a Canon EOS1V with an f1.4 lens is noticeably brighter.

But the binary nature of the split image does work, but in dim light the trick is to find a contrasty enough item to focus on, IMHO.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 01, 2001.


Focusing with the M6 in low light is usually easier that a SLR but not when you have the only light of the room in front of you and beside your subject. There is a large amount of flare which is very annoying...

-- Toan Nguyen (toan.nguyen@videotron.ca), December 01, 2001.

Thank you Toan,

I agree with your post and I'm happy you said it: M superiority, yes, but not always (= a natural law ;-) Alain

-- alain.besancon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), December 02, 2001.


Toan / Alain

Have a look at this and the issue with the flare is solved!!

http://www.konermann.net/shade.html

Cheers

-- Salvatore Reitano (reitanosalvatore@hotmail.com), December 02, 2001.



Chris,

I would definalty have to agree with you. I used just use the matte screen on my F3 and had many problems focusing - I would always backfocus. I then started using the split image and the electronic rangfinder in the F4s I used, but it could be annoying to have to take you're eye off what you were shooting to make sure you were in focus! When I got my first Leica it took me a while to get used to it, but I love it now although the patch does flare up sometimes.

john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), December 03, 2001.


Sorry, it souldn't read F1.0 but F2.0. I tried it at home over the weekend the hard way and it really seems f2.0 - at least for my recently overhauled M2. Don't know what made me write 1.0 these - maybe freudian typo thought ?

Kai

PS: That would make the voigtlaender finders f1.4. Seems more in line with real life, doesn't it ?

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), December 03, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ