I came across an article that claimed that range-finder cameras are best than SLR for available light photography. Because I do a lot of photography in this situation I became interested in knowing exactly why. Can some one explain why are there technical advantages in the range-finder camera design that makes them more suitable for low light photography than a SLR in the modern days? One claim was that the lens designed permitted better performance at large apertures. Is this true?

Best regards,

Sergio Rui Silva

In low-light situations AF can hunt and not perform well because of the inherent low contrast situation. Same with manual focusing, even with larger aperture lenses. However, the focusing mechanism with the rangefinder is inherently different. You can line up the focusing target in the rangefinder patch much easier on a rangefinder than focusing an SLR in low light. It is true that some of the large aperture rangefinder lenses are better than their SLR equivalents wide open as well. For instance, from what I've seen of Leica 50/1.0 lens and Canon 50/1.0, there is no comparison in terms of sharpness. The Leica is much better. Same with Leica 50/1.4 asph and Canon 50/1.4. I don't know about Canon 50/1.2L. I would venture to say that Leica-M 35/1.4 asph is also a better lens than Canon 35L. The other advantage of the rangefinder is that you can use slower shutter speeds than an SLR in general. All these would come out in favor of the rangefinder in low-light situations.

Low light photography can profit from lenses which perform well wide open, from sensors which give high IQ and low Noise at fast speeds like ISO 1600 or 3200, and IS lenses can help to prevent image shake.

The RF does not need to move a mirror and some people think this is an advantage though I have never seen any damage done by the mirrors movement. RF lenses offer some design advantage which puts them above SLR lenses to beginn with. Though there are many good SLR lenses which are very close to the RF lenses. The viewfinder of SLR lenses is more accurate while the range-finder does not offer the same precision and some of the negative size may be lost through this. With both systems you need to think about a way to get accurate focus, pointing at a light source or estimating the distance can help.

There s the deal: opt for a good lens wide open and shoot at f2 or use a lens with IS. The real problem is to find the sensor which produces the cleanest file when shooting at high ISO.

Finaly there are photogs which prefer the SLR and some which prefer RF. Knowing your tool gives you the best. I have done a lot of night photography and my best assistance was a tripod

I have been through a few rangefinders. My favorite was the Contax G2 system and the G-series lenses - every one of them was top notch and I used all except the Hologon 16mm for the G-system. These lenses were spectacular compared to any other lenses I have used.

However, the day of the rangefinder - especially with film, specifically to be used for low light photography, has come and gone. Today's SLR's are very capable when it comes to low light photography. I own a 5D which I find quite capable of low light photography.

I could handhold a rangefinder to as low as 1/15th at f2.0 and come away with an acceptable shot. However, I can get the same, and in most cases, even better, with the 5D and a prime (f1.2 or f1.4 - even stopped down to f2.0) and using high ISO (800 to 1600). With a 5D and a prime, I try to maintain a balance such that I get at least 1/50th shutter. Any less and it's hit or miss.

The other advantage the RF had was it's size. Small, tough, and beautifully crafted. The 5D with a Canon L prime or zoom feels like a box.

Shutter lag is another minor issue when comparing rangefinder's to SLR's. The 5D shutter lag is definitely greater than the rangefinder shutter lag - feels that way when looking at missed shots.

Never had an issue with the mirror shake really. Just something you get used to and accomodate into the process when using SLR's. The price you pay for mirror shake makes up in the range of focal lengths available when using an SLR.

The other comparison that usually plays a rile is the viewfinder. My Contax G2 viewfinder was similar to the viewfinder on the Rebel XT or XTi. Teeny tiny peep hole is the best way to describe it. When looking through the viewfinder of a full frame D-SLR or a 100% viewfinder of a 35mm film SLR, the difference is significant. Leica has a brighter viewfinder on their rangefinders, but the SLR's have the advantage here regardless.

If the Leica M8 did not have it's issues and the price was not typical Leica, a RF would be a nice idea. The Epson RD1s actually fits the bill as soon as they come out with a better sensor on it with better high ISO noise levels.

After you spend the $$$ to get a rangefinder (digital or film) or an SLR which is wonderful for low light (like the 5D or maybe the new 1D Mk III), you will come back to the same conclusion. Like the above post said, if you want to do low light photography, a tripod is your best friend.

Have a Leica M8 and agree with most of the sentiments above. The handholdable shutter speeds were noticably longer for normal to wide focal length lenses in particular. The RF + Noctilux combo took low light photography to a level I had never before experienced with my Canon gear and L lenses. Many pros and cons as mentioned by the previous posters to having the RF vs SLR so depending on your specific needs it may or may not be right for you.

Concerning the M8, the few tests I did with it have taken me to the conclusion that yes, it is easier, or at least more precise and reliable, to focus a rangefinder in low light, compared to SLR in autofocus or even manual focus. But the M8 is much, much noisier in high-ISO settings than the 5D, for exemple. A kind of catch-22 between focus ease and ISO noise. So in very low light, the 5D with a 85L, 35L or 24L (which I haven't tried) seems to me to be the best solution by a very wide margin.

I agree with Belsha et al.. In my experience the best low light results of any equipment I have ever used are with Canon 5D on account of its remarkable performance at 1600 and even 3200 iso. Since it can take good pictures at 6400 iso, the 1Diii is the successor to the 5D at low light, but it's a brick. The M8 struggles in low light because it has noisy high iso performance and lower resolution. At these high isos, lens performance is not quite so critical since the camera isn't performing at its highest resolution anyway. Mirror vibration makes no visible difference and should be completely ignored. Good technique is far more significant.

Accurate focus at widest apertures is best gained by focus bracketing when possible, although with practice it is just as easy to focus a 5D accurately as an M8. Use Canon's Ee-S screen, not a third party one.

There are many wide aperture lenses which give excellent results wide open. To mention a few: cheap options include the Olympus f2 wides (21, 24, 28, 35) although they vignette a lot. Spendier are the Canons 24f1.4, 28f1.8, 35f1.4, 50f1.0, 50f1.2, 85f1.2, 135f2, 200f1.8. If you want to pay for arguably the best, go for Zeiss 28f2, 35f1.4, 55f1.2, 85f1.2. Other people will recommend Leica R lenses too, but make sure you like that 2D look.

Remember, high iso performance is key, because every aperture stop you open up makes really accurate focus harder to find. In other words, a fast camera is going to give you better results than fast lenses.

Now if only they had made the 1DmkIII in a smaller version then you would get the most up to date AF in the world and incredible noise control at 14 bits. Shame that it's tank size but we can only hope that the technology will hit 'small' at some point in the future, 5 years is not such a long time to wait is it?

the notion probably relates back to the film era, but it still has value today
its a mix of bright finders, handling, speed. Remember in film that pretty much any 35mm camera can use any 35mm film. In digital that all changed when the sensor became the film.

pretty much any OVF with a prism or mirror takes a hit in light transmission
in particular RF OVF is a simple uncomplicated yet bright device

Since the RF is pretty well limited to/ or a WA specialist depending on your view, and WA having a necessarily deeper DoF, they are easier to set for a useful focus zone. And since MF lenses wont either shift focus when you turn the rig on/off, or hunt in low contrast conditions, it is pretty much an immediate, decisive moment shot. In the very nature of circumstances like street shooting in variable light circumstances this is an enormous advantage. No backfocus or AF issue to get in the way, and no stopdown action for MF glass just so you can see. Bresson take a bow.

For the immediate action in view requires an immediate response from a camera, guaranteed. With film RF typically you could leave it turned on, but now in digital we might be thinking of saving some battery energy, or sleep mode will shut it down

On the M8 in particular they attempted to to have the camera wake from sleep mode when you touched the shutter release. In my observation this didnt really work out, because the camera took the shot before the circuits were properly charged, resulting in streaks and banding. The firmware fix for this just slowed the process down some, hence losing some decisive speed.

So in balance it depends what you choose to work with, because i dont think there would be much speed difference in it between a dSLR or a RF with MF. Excepting that the lighter dSLRs are usually lower end models, with low end handling consequences. The faster shooting circumstances available on high end dSLRs with good AF and shutter response on FF comes at the cost of awkwardness, weight and bulk.

But i do think that the relatively lightweight RF in the right hands is a very exacting tool, that requires more of you than a dSLR, but somehow gives more back when you get it right. They are somehow photography in its purest form, and therefore the most fun.

lol@ 2D from Leica glass, just completely strange

> ...handling...

It is important to remember that handling is way inferior on a rangefinder viewfinder. You MUST use the central point and then recompose because the rest of the viewfinder gives you no sharpness information, and no bokeh information. In fact, you can't even see if there's mud on your lens. Then remember to compensate for parallax if your subject is close. Framebounds aren't too accurate and also depend on subject distance. If subject detail is mainly horizontal, you will need to twist camera to portrait format to focus and then twist back again. If your subject has a repeating vertical pattern like, say, railings, then it will look focussed when it isn't and you will need to find something else to focus on.

> No backfocus or AF issue to get in the way, and no stopdown action for MF glass just so you can see. Bresson take a bow.

Rangefinders can suffer from back/front focus problems just like SLRs.

> The faster shooting circumstances available on high end dSLRs with good AF and shutter response on FF comes at the cost of awkwardness

If AF slows you down, switch it off. Modern DSLRs are sculpted to fit the hand and the buttons are in the right places. An M8 is so dense and slippery it just itches to be dropped.

> But i do think that the relatively lightweight RF in the right hands is a very exacting tool, that requires more of you than a dSLR, but somehow gives more back when you get it right. They are somehow photography in its purest form, and therefore the most fun.

...the Harley-Davidson of photography.

> lol@ 2D from Leica glass, just completely strange

strange, or sacreligious?

brainiac wrote:
It is important to remember that handling is way inferior on a rangefinder viewfinder. You MUST use the central point and then recompose because the rest of the viewfinder gives you no sharpness information, and no bokeh information. In fact, you can't even see if there's mud on your lens. Then remember to compensate for parallax if your subject is close. Framebounds aren't too accurate and also depend on subject distance. If subject detail is mainly horizontal, you will need to twist camera to portrait format to focus and then twist back again. If your subject has a repeating vertical pattern like, say, railings, then it will look focussed when it isn't and you will need to find something else to focus on.

now is the time to remember me saying that RF require more of you than 'push this button to make picture now' cameras
it does require skill and judgement, and a good RF system

brainiac wrote
Rangefinders can suffer from back/front focus problems just like SLRs.


yes, but probably not automatically

brainiac wrote
If AF slows you down, switch it off. Modern DSLRs are sculpted to fit the hand and the buttons are in the right places. An M8 is so dense and slippery it just itches to be dropped.


oops....butter fingers

brainiac wrote
...the Harley-Davidson of photography.


as opposed to the double decker bus

brainiac wrote
strange, or sacreligious?

its strange, purely strange; the first time i saw you write that i thought ... thats strange, the more you persist in it, the stranger it gets

> as opposed to the double decker bus

...the Routemaster remains to this day the finest bus design ever - a paragon of efficiency and fitness for purpose. The Harley-Davidson remains a ton of dangerous noisy indirigible vulgarity rescued by misplaced nostalgia. IMO each one could be melted down and turned into two good bikes with steering, brakes, fuel efficiency, and acceleration ;-)

its strange, purely strange; the first time i saw you write that i thought ... thats strange, the more you persist in it, the stranger it gets

There's nothing strange about it. The Leica lenses I have tried, while peerless in most other respects, have suffered a noticable lack of 3D effect. If you don't see that, that's your trip. I think people should bear 3D effect in mind when choosing rangefinder or SLR lenses. You can laugh, but there's nothing particularly strange about it.

brainiac wrote:

The Harley-Davidson remains a ton of dangerous noisy indirigible vulgarity rescued by misplaced nostalgia. IMO each one could be melted down and turned into two good bikes with steering, brakes, fuel efficiency, and acceleration ;-)



Now that's blasphemy....

No one who has owned or used a Harley the way a bike like this should be treated would say that.

The only people who feel a Harley Davidson is nothing more than a noisy bike which requires constant repairs and is compensation for misplaced nostalgia is someone who has never owned one, or someone who never figured out why they own one, or why they ride a motorcycle. I own one and have also owned Japanese bikes (suzuki, Yamaha, etc.) as well as a Triumph.

The Harley is still the bike to ride, despite the fact that a damn service costs up to $400 each time


It's like saying the Leica Rangefinders are no good because they don't offer fast shutter speeds of up to 1/8000th or super telephoto lens capability or a 8fps motor drive and AF lenses like the 35mm SLR's do - hence it must be no good..

Pascal, thats how he thinks

It's like saying the Leica Rangefinders are no good because they don't offer fast shutter speeds of up to 1/8000th or super telephoto lens capability or a 8fps motor drive and AF lenses like the 35mm SLR's do - hence it must be no good.

Haha - glad you're here - I got tired of winding up the Leica fanboiz ;-)

I do actually think that features like fast AF and bleeding edge high iso performance would be welcome in a rangefinder at an appropriate price, let's say, half what the M8 costs. Contax had a go for a while. I am not a zoom fan, or an AF fan, but SLR is a great scheme, and the market has chosen. We want truly pocketable compacts, or proper wysiwyg SLRs. Leica and Harley-Davidson are now part of the fashion industry. Their products are no longer competitive. They are a brand loyalty statement. They say 'I wanna be Marlon Brando, or Cartier Bresson. Check out my beret.'

Just kidding guys, its gentle humour, don't go crazy...

brainiac wrote:

Haha - glad you're here - I got tired of winding up the Leica fanboiz ;-)



...do I dare to dream that one day this statement can come true
When that day comes FM may finally be able to field some objective discussion on anything branded Leica. Just an observation from previous M8 related posts where certain personalities always manage to weigh in on with their decidely Canon sell. Not to take away from the merits of the Canon argument of which many I agree, but it strikes me that this recurring poster has already made up his mind and is unable to concieve of the possibility that someone could come to a different conclusion. So for those few remaining "Leica fanboiz" on this forum that are interested in any sort of rational M8 or RF related discussion I suggest you head to the Leica User Forum where many former FM contributors have taken refuge from this remarkably one sided drive.

yes a lot of Leica people disappeared from here, they have a forum that is Leica specific, as opposed to 'Canon', 'almost Canon', and 'why isnt it a Canon' forums we have here. And thats a pitty for here, because among them are some pretty decent photographers. Im just hanging around for the Fuji F30 v/s 5D debate, and the moment when the true meaning of what 'fanboiz' really are comes home to roost.

geen idee

LOL...do I dare to dream that one day this statement can come true :D
When that day comes FM may finally be able to field some objective discussion on anything branded Leica.

The exodus occurred precisely because all discussion about Leica products here was decidedly irrational and unobjective. When we tried to discuss it rationally the Leica priests went berzerk. Really demonstrative a/b comparisons were frowned upon. Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem. Now we have a forum where anyone is free to discuss and demonstrate the merits AND shortcomings of any alternative gear she is interested in. I myself am brand-agnostic. I use Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Contax. I no longer use Hasselblad, Bronica, Pentax, Rollei, Mamiya or Leica, but reserve the right to do so. When Halina produce the best usable, affordable high image quality digital camera I will use that. I don't care about brands at all, except when they discourage people from assessing products objectively.

Anyone is entitled to discuss the advantages of the M8 here. But unlike certain reviewers, some of us aren't scared to speak openly about its shortcomings too. If you don't like that kind of discussion, as you say, go to a forum where Leica's supremacy is not open to debate.

The fanboiz comment was a joke. There are Canon fanboiz too, although I am not one of them. Sorry you find my views on Leica products offensive.

brainiac wrote:
The exodus occurred precisely because all discussion about Leica products here was decidedly irrational and unobjective. When we tried to discuss it rationally the Leica priests went berzerk. Really demonstrative a/b comparisons were frowned upon. Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem. Now we have a forum where anyone is free to discuss and demonstrate the merits AND shortcomings of any alternative gear she is interested in. I myself am brand-agnostic. I use Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Contax. I no longer use Hasselblad, Bronica, Pentax, Rollei, Mamiya or Leica, but reserve the right to do so. When Halina produce the best usable, affordable high image quality digital camera I will use that. I don't care about brands at all, except when they discourage people from assessing products objectively.

Anyone is entitled to discuss the advantages of the M8 here. But unlike certain reviewers, some of us aren't scared to speak openly about its shortcomings too. If you don't like that kind of discussion, as you say, go to a forum where Leica's supremacy is not open to debate.

The fanboiz comment was a joke. There are Canon fanboiz too, although I am not one of them. Sorry you find my views on Leica products offensive.

you just fail to see how offensive your dialogue is dont you
brainiac wrote
Leica fanboiz
Leica priests went berzerk
Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem


Not at all isolated incidences, you tried the same on me just a few posts ago, and as though a prelude to your happiness having run those people out of here you go on to say

brainiac wrote
If you don't like that kind of discussion, as you say, go to a forum where Leica's supremacy is not open to debate.

how could anyone get any other idea of what you are really about

After the Sigma/5D comparisons debacle, with the apparently many identities of LotusM50, i cant say Im surprised. But i really think some of you people should consider the worth of the Alternative Digital Systems and Lenses section, without the people that get pushed out of here, and for purposes other than 'alternative lenses on canon mounts'.

But i guess if there is one thing to be said about multiple personality complexes of some, they are at least never alone.

This happens every time I say that a Leica product falls short in some way.

My 5Ds have pretty average ergonomics, the viewfinder could be brighter, the on-off switch is in a stupid place, the histogram would be better superimposed on the review image and so on. Many of the Canon lenses have neither 3D, nor rich colour, nor good sharpness nor contrast. Somehow I don't think that's going to cause a flamewar.

brainiac wrote:
This happens every time I say that a Leica product falls short in some way.


oh really, ..... are you so sure that the causal relationship is that, as opposed to when you use language like...

brainiac wrote:
Leica fanboiz
Leica priests went berzerk
Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem

You left out the winking smiley. It was "Leica fanboiz ;-)". It was light-hearted.

> Leica priests went berserk

They did. Abusive and irrational comments towards me were posted and then deleted from the M8 thread. The moderator and I discussed the fact that this effectively made people unaccountable for what they had said. I was even threatened with legal action by PM, simply for asking to see results. I remained polite and rational as is my habit. Those who were probably exercising some influence on others to buy this new camera, the best camera ever, apparently, would not tolerate so much as an a/b comparison between it and a much cheaper camera. They became irrational and abusive simply because I wanted to see actual evidence of the very tall claims that were being made. Evidence for those claims is still not available. So yes, the Leica priests went berserk. I can't think of a better way to express it.

> Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica

Let me put it another way then: a propensity to regard the company's products as better than others while avoiding direct comparison of results, and dismissing serious shortcomings, for the sake of guarding the company's iconic reputation.

Earlier in this thread I described some of the shortcomings of rangefinder focussing. You suggested that it didn't need to be said as you already had that covered. But you hadn't actually mentioned those problems, and they are big problems for a $4000 camera. Why did you want me not to discuss those problems? We haven't even started on IR-cut filters, banding, ultimate resolution, moiré, sudden electronic camera death, and cost, all of which problems affect low-light photography just as they affect daylight photography.

You love your cameras and that's great, but on a thread entitled "Are range-finders still best for low-light?" I think it's important that responses help the original poster consider the full range of issues and cut through the hype. Awareness that Leica M is surrounded by something like a religious cult is an important first step in deciding whether to spend $10000.

> If subject detail is mainly horizontal, you will need to twist camera to portrait format to focus and then twist back again.

At the risk of bringing the thread back on topic, there's more to this actually. In low light you may well wish to use an f1.4 lens wide open. With closer subjects this twist from portrait to landscape or vice versa, is likely to spoil your lovingly achieved focus accuracy, since your depth of field is often just a few millimetres. The M8 allows you to focus bracket manually, just like a DSLR, but it is hard to rock back and forth over the focus point as you shoot if the desired focus point is off-centre, because you can't see how far off focus you are until you move the focus square over the focus point and back again. So you will have to keep recomposing while focus-bracketing. Whoops, there goes the famous decisive moment. 2 frames-per-second doesn't help either.

What is more, forget not that lenses ideally have a planar plane of focus. That means that if focussing in the centre gives you a distance of 3 yards, by the time you have recomposed the shot so the focus point is near the corner, focus is actually set to 4 yards for that part of the frame, and the camera is actually focussed far behind the subject. In low light with a 35mm lens at f1.4 that is going to really matter. This problem doesn't affect manually focussed SLRs since they display what strikes the film plane.

This all means that shots like this are far harder to reliably achieve on a rangefinder since you can't accurately focus on off-centre subjects:

what, what on earth is this stuff about religion to do with Leica users ?
despite your permissive ravings, you use it at almost every opportunity eg.

brainiac wrote:
strange, or sacreligious?
Leica fanboiz
Leica priests went berzerk
Religious belief in the supremacy of all things Leica was the problem
So yes, the Leica priests went berserk

then you have the absurd gaul to attest to how you were abused, that you were threatened with legal action while you ...
"remained polite and rational as is my habit"
well when did you give that up ... just recently ?

You need to be made aware that your sense of fair language gets in the way of your discussion, that it hastens the discussion to the bottom, and that in the end you get what you give.

Further to this, my choice of camera ownership is NOT an excuse for you to cut loose on your old rantings based upon argument that you have had with the people that have left here already, and i would appreciate it if you leave that out..

as to your claim of Leicas distinct lack of decisive moment, tell it to this guy
btw you will quite probably need to lean on your religion

image attributed to Henri Cartier-Bresson

What has Cartier-Bresson to do with the M8? HCB used the Leica because it was the best tool at the time. The early Leica was reliable and silent, optics were of high quality and you could load the best film available. He also knew his job. I was told he had his camera always with him and often set the exposure and distance he needed when he entered a room or a new situation. That was the way to get best results in that time, though we have better technologie available and the SLR is the best, fastest tool now (IMO)
At the time HCB became a Myth most turned away from Leica and choosed to go with the Nikon F and rangefinder cameras did never again have the importance of the good old time.

Anyway I thought the discussion was about rangefinder in general, not the Leica.