What does it really mean: “No good for low light”

[mike3996]

If I may review some of my cameras with respect to low light abilities:

• Panasonic M4/3 cameras (GX80, G80, G9): choppy livefeed with many lenses. F/1.7 primes just about barely keep things fluent. If there were more compact f/1.4 primes, things could be better. Autofocus accuracy drops dramatically due to contrast detect detecting bokeh balls as sharp edges. ISO performance: very good actually, in conjunction with IBIS.
• Nikon Df: fluent optical feed, of course. The viewfinder does get too dim if you use slow lenses. Very good ISO performance, but not a miracle maker. Autofocus gives up easily which greatly reduces the night capabilities of this camera.
• Pentax KP: fluent optical feed. The viewfinder gets dim. Good ISO performance but mandatory noise reduction destroys valuable detail. What a s---y thing to do, Pentax! Limited testing but autofocus seems pretty okay. The AF is far from perfect but it's already pretty mediocre in good light also so it doesn't drop as much in low light.
• Leica M: fluent optical feed. The viewfinder remains bright and usable every hour of the night. Manual focus remains razor sharp accurate and quick no matter the light. Poor high ISO is the big limitation of this system. (There's going to be ugly banding in the noise when ISO 6400 is reached.) A newer Leica body, as long it's a rangefinder, would be the ideal night time camera. Newer bodies can do ISO 25600 with ease. Should be enough for most photography applications.
• Fuji X100: fluent optical feed. The digital feed is choppy as hell but luckily you don't have to use it. Autofocus is very unreliable but you do get some good tools about assessing the focus (focus distance scales etc). Good ISO perf. Great stabilization due to leaf shutter. The later models (T, F, V) come with PDAF and focus pretty quickly in very dark conditions. Could be very capable night cameras.
• Leica Q: (it's been a while I used this camera so these memories are certainly deteriorated by now). Fluent EVF in most cases. Not that good high ISO performance (banding forms after 6400) but there's optical stabilizer and the camera uses a leaf shutter anyway. Autofocus accuracy (CDAF) drops dramatically in the same way Panasonics do. The lens focuses on bokeh balls all too easily.

Given this context, I am thinking about maybe a PDAF Olympus might be an interesting camera to simply try out. Micro 4/3 cameras have the stabilizers and ISO capabilities to run slow lenses but the problem, if there's any, will be the live feed fluency. This is why I am probably going to give Olympus a third try some time in the fall, possibly. (The first two Olympi I have had were CDAF cameras and I have fuzzy memories about how they fared.)

Also given this same context, I don't think my Panasonic S1 is going to be any good with native autofocusing lenses in the dark. I believe they'll be misfocusing.

 

[John King]

@mike3996 Mike, unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you are talking about, I just whipped my E-M1 MkII + 12-100 around our after dark living room.

It was all but indistinguishable from my E-30, with its 100%, 1x pentaprism OVF. No choppiness or lag noticeable by me. Having ADD/ADHD, I am extremely sensitive to that kind of visual effect. While I don't have epilepsy, I am very badly effected by any kind of strobing lights.

I just did exactly the same thing with my E-M1 MkI + 12-50 macro, and it is exactly as you describe in this poor light.

Light level is ISO 200, f/5.6 @ 2" ...

While I always knew that the E-M1 MkII was a pretty big upgrade compared with the MkI, this difference is huge. From ghastly to unnoticeable ...

 

[mike3996]

@mike3996

Light level is ISO 200, f/5.6 @ 2" ...

While I always knew that the E-M1 MkII was a pretty big upgrade compared with the MkI, this difference is huge. From ghastly to unnoticeable ...

Thanks John!
It is true that this is a very personal matter; how one perceives bad image feed. Some/most won't care, while others are more sensitive to it. For example I probably didn't care or notice shortcomings of my cameras in 2018, the same models might give me trouble today?

But your description seems very... descriptive.

Besides the enhanced feed, E-M1.2 also uses PDAF in S-AF focusing, so I have pretty good expectations of it. The S-OVF feature might enhance things further, I don't know?

Panasonic G9 is a bit better than the older-gen GX80/G80. I believe GH6 is on S1's level, meaning pretty darn good. But Panasonics ain't perfect. For one thing, they are scared to run high ISOs during live feed. I think it's understandably tied to their CDAF focusing engine. Noise pixels don't exactly help the camera achieve focus. With Panasonic cameras when you use automatic exposure programs and turn your EC down, it means more fluent live feed. Vice versa, upping the EC will slow things down. Kind of a nasty thing when you think about it. Your artistic vision is being hindered by technical minutiae.

 

[Lawrence A.]

12 mp D-lux 109 at iso 6400 from raw file. Good for my needs even if I'd usually shoot 3200 or lower. The thumbnail brings up an image as I sized it in Photoshop.

 

[Brian]

DSC_0699 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Nikon Df with the 85mm F1.8, manual focus, wide-open. ISO 12,800 and 1/320th second.



M Monochrom, Canon 100mm F2, wide-open, ISO 10,000 and 1/125th second.

I have an easier time focusing the Leica over the Df, but both are very good in low-light.

Subjects are moving very quickly.