Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best camera in low light

M

Mildredop

macrumors 68020
Original poster
The vast majority of my photography is in very dark places where using a tripod or flash isn't an option.

I currently have a Sony RX100 which is ok in low light, but does anyone know of or have any advice on a truly exceptional low light camera?
 
There are noise free photos in low light and there is accurate focus in low light.
The low light performance of a camera depends on the lensspeed and the sensor.

Best cameras (paired with a fast lens) for low light + low light fast focusing would be
- Nikon D4s and Canon 1Dx
Those are a bit pricey.

Then there is the D750, which is supposed to focus excellently in low light.

Then there are the
Nikon Df, Nikon D610, Sony As, Canon 6D which all have excellent low light performance, but not as good (but still very good) low light focus.

In any case one of the most important factors is the lens. If you don't mind manual focusing, you can get lenses f1.4 and even faster for quite a bargain.

(This belongs in the photgraphy subforum.)
 
Also the A7s model is very good in low light. Paired with a good fast lens of f1.4, it is incredible how clean the images are.
 
right now I would say D750 or A7s.. The things I have seen people get out of those cameras in low light is almost unbelievable. Check youtube reviews 🙂
 
Infrared flash?

Maybe a gorillapod would help--you could wrap it on a chair, a railing, or other available prop. On and off quick, easy to carry.
 
The Canon 6D is an outstanding camera for low light photography, considering that it's relatively cheap when compared to the 5D III and 1DX series. Just search night photography with the 6D.

That said, the Sony A7s is the king of low-light photography at the moment, and that's the one I would buy.
 
Last edited:
Attonine said:
I know your joking about this, but Leica M....exceptional low light camera...Really?
Click to expand...

I was thinking in terms of actual, real world use of the camera, i.e., being able to see the scene, accurately focus, and get usable shutter speeds. Personally, I couldn't care less about "noise", and the M240 is usable at ISO 6400. Sure, newer bodies like the Nikon D8XX will be cleaner, but for shooting in indoor, nighttime environs? I'll take an M any day.
 
Attonine said:
It's not really bad, it's just everything else is so much better. I mean, I've never used the current M240, but i think you can go to 3200, maybe even 6400.
Click to expand...

True it is a 2012/13 camera right?

The lenses however are great in low light
 
Zerozal said:
I was thinking in terms of actual, real world use of the camera, i.e., being able to see the scene, accurately focus, and get usable shutter speeds. Personally, I couldn't care less about "noise", and the M240 is usable at ISO 6400. Sure, newer bodies like the Nikon D8XX will be cleaner, but for shooting in indoor, nighttime environs? I'll take an M any day.
Click to expand...


Could you explain what you mean by "actual, real world use"? I'm also confused about most of your post actually. See the scene, accurately focus, usable shutter speeds, indoor, nighttime environs? What exactly is the advantage of the Leica M?

An the the Noctilux? Hmmm, accurately focus at F0.95, at night? Better have eagle eyes and a stationary subject, and a lot of time, to get the focus in that wafer thin 0.95 DoF.
 
Attonine said:
Could you explain what you mean by "actual, real world use"? I'm also confused about most of your post actually. See the scene, accurately focus, usable shutter speeds, indoor, nighttime environs? What exactly is the advantage of the Leica M?

An the the Noctilux? Hmmm, accurately focus at F0.95, at night? Better have eagle eyes and a stationary subject, and a lot of time, to get the focus in that wafer thin 0.95 DoF.
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily. This past year, I have used my 35mm Summilux (with a M6) in Gothic cathedrals, on dull, overcast days, without tripod or flash, at fairly normal speeds (30/60/125) and the pictures came out flawlessly.

Moreover, I find that I can photograph indoors in natural light without flash, and the pictures (of, say, my mother) come out perfectly.

In fact, I bought the camera and lenses precisely for the challenging situation of dark, light deprived northern Europe in the half of the year when natural light is often awful.

The camera is light, (as in exceedingly portable), reassuringly solid in the hand, and the 'fast' lenses are extraordinarily forgiving. (That is why I bought them). I didn't want a massive doorstopper of a camera.

Now, I will readily grant I won't get action shots - but, to be honest, that is not what interests me.
 
Scepticalscribe said:
Well, not necessarily. This past year, I have used my 35mm Summilux (with a M6) in Gothic cathedrals, on dull, overcast days, without tripod or flash, at fairly normal speeds (30/60/125) and the pictures came out flawlessly.

Moreover, I find that I can photograph indoors in natural light without flash, and the pictures (of, say, my mother) come out perfectly.

In fact, I bought the camera and lenses precisely for the challenging situation of dark, light deprived northern Europe in the half of the year when natural light is often awful.

The camera is light, (as in exceedingly portable), reassuringly solid in the hand, and the 'fast' lenses are extraordinarily forgiving. (That is why I bought them). I didn't want a massive doorstopper of a camera.

Now, I will readily grant I won't get action shots - but, to be honest, that is not what interests me.
Click to expand...

Now change the M6 for an M240 and you will see pretty quickly there's nothing exceptional about it (the M240). It's heavy, it's certainly not small, it's not discreet, reliability is questionable, and the sensor is anything but class leading. Let's face it, in the digital world there are many options for low light photography that leave the Leica standing. Oh, what about the lenses? Well, there are many options that can use the lenses, are smaller, lighter, more discreet, have better sensors and smoother high ISO.
 
Last edited:
Attonine said:
Now change the M6 for an M240 and you will see pretty quickly there's nothing exceptional about it (the M240). It's heavy, it's certainly not small, it's not discreet, reliability is questionable, and the sensor is anything but class leading. Let's face it, in the digital world there are many options for low light photography that leave the Leica standing. Oh, what about the lenses? Well, there are many options that can use the lenses, are smaller, lighter, more discreet, have better sensors and smoother high ISO.
Click to expand...

I daresay. Never having had - nor used - a digital camera, I'll willingly concede that I know not the first thing about them, and have no sense whatsoever of the possibilities they permit.

Indeed, I remember having to google the word 'noise' as none of the jargon laden sites I consulted could offer an explanation which made sense; it was as though an esoteric priesthood conversed in some crane language understood solely by initiates.

However, my Leica is an enormous improvement - for ease of use and portability - on my previous camera, which was a Nikon F100 (and which, as it happens, was stolen some years ago). It is also extraordinarily ergonomically friendly and is a camera that I find myself willingly taking with me, whereas I found the F100 inconveniently heavy to lug around cities.

I will say that for my needs at present, I am hugely enjoying the M6 and the Summilux lens - and will say that it renders people, and the interiors of houses, Gothic cathedrals and other antique buildings, superbly.
 
Scepticalscribe said:
I daresay. Never having had - nor used - a digital camera, I'll willingly concede that I know not the first thing about them, and have no sense whatsoever of the possibilities they permit.

Indeed, I remember having to google the word 'noise' as none of the jargon laden sites I consulted could offer an explanation which made sense; it was as though an esoteric priesthood conversed in some crane language understood solely by initiates.

However, my Leica is an enormous improvement - for ease of use and portability - on my previous camera, which was a Nikon F100 (and which, as it happens, was stolen some years ago). It is also extraordinarily ergonomically friendly and is a camera that I find myself willingly taking with me, whereas I found the F100 inconveniently heavy to lug around cities.

I will say that for my needs at present, I am hugely enjoying the M6 and the Summilux lens - and will say that it renders people, and the interiors of houses, Gothic cathedrals and other antique buildings, superbly.
Click to expand...

I remember the F100 well, and the F90s that preceded it. Great cameras.

This is just to show you how out of shape the Leica M now is:

Nikon F100 weight: 879g
Leica M6 weight: 560g
Leica M240 weight: 677g

Just for comparison, Fuji X100t (including lens, obviously!): 440g

It's dimensions have also increased. I think these are weights with batteries etc. Of course there is lens weight to be added too (except for the Fuji; I included the Fuji because it's a very popular choice for those who want a rangefinder style digital camera - though it's not actually a rangefinder, and has a fixed lens).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back