kx vs rangefinder + Tri x film for low light b&w photography?

<p>I'm interested in low light/available light b&w photography (indoor cafe's/music, street lights) and have not cared for the results from my old DSLR at high ISO (> 400). I have been considering getting a rangefinder (Bessa) and a w/a lens just for this type of shooting. (I can develop and scan my own 35mm film - although it is time consuming). <br>

However feedback/comments on the Pentax Kx at high ISO seems very positive so this may be an alternative worth considering - both setups are light/small and good prime lens are available for both afaik). One advantage with a rangefinder is quiet operation + bright viewfinder - also film choice and control over development process.<br>

I believe that the dynamic range of b&w negative film like Tri x may also be greater than digital sensors - but this may no longer be the case. <br>

Concerns with the Pentax are: shutter noise; low light focus; is kx viewfinder pentamirror is inferior to pentaprism? Pentax primes have a good reputation, but are not very fast.<br>

I have no way of checking out a Pentax Kx + prime locally - so I'd appreciate any comments/thoughts from anyone here who has experience with both setups. <br>

I'll just add that I don't care/need autofocus here - I'm used to manual focus lenses on my old film SLR's - in low light I'd expect to focus manually - I'm looking for the best possible printed image as the end result. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought myself a Konica Hexar AF for not a great deal of money after considering proper rangefinders. (I have also an Olympus 35 RC but at f2.8 it's not fast enough for evenings and I wanted something wider). I too was not bothered about autofocus until I tried it, but the Hexar focuses in pitch darkness thanks to its active IR system, so there's never any searching. The lens is also far better than anything you'll be able to afford after buying a Bessa body, it' s a 35mm f2 favourably compared to Summicrons, and the shutter is the quietest you'll find on a 35mm camera.<br>

If you can live with a fixed 35mm lens, there's not a lot compares for the money. Oh you also get auto bracketing and a spot meter thrown in for your troubles, and if it interests you, flash photography is easier than with a manual RF.</p>

<p>I'm very much of the opinion that if you want decent high ISO black and whites, film is still the only way. When I caught myself trying to replicate that look with digital, I sold my DSLR and got the Hexar to compliment my MX.</p>

<p>A couple of examples to follow...</p><div></div>

<p>A second:</p><div></div>

<p>Well, Brendan, you listed about four positive aspects of film and rangefinder in a row; then, you listed about negative aspects you expect form a K-X in a row. It sounds like you expect more success from the film and rangefinder combo.</p>

<p>I generally prefer film, but there is nothing wrong with contemporary DSLRs. Do what makes you happy. It looks like you are leaning towards film and rangefinder, so why not give that a try?</p>

<p>George, your environmental portraiture is inspiring! Every time I see it I'm floored. I know you use available light, but sheesh.... what IS that light!? :-) Bravo!</p>

<p>Personal preference should be the determining factor. I still have some Leica lenses and was also considering a Bessa but...nah...too much hassle. Have a look at Nik Silver Efex Pro B4 you decide.</p>

<p>I don't want to discourage you from Tri-X, but Tri-X pushed isn't the most grain free experience. I'm sure it will work though. It did for me for years. I will also say that some of the latest DSLRs have very good high ISO performance, or so the reviewers say.</p>

<p>Ok, Rangefinders for Tri-X. Bessa would be fine I'm sure (haven't tried it). My favorite is the Leica M (M3 or M2) which you can sometimes find in user condition for $500 or so. Great cameras. You can use Voigtlander lenses to save money because Leica lenses, while excellent, are expensive. They're also very quiet. My first camera, the old fixed lens Konica 1 deserves mention because it has a great lens AND it's the quietest camera I've ever used. I used to routinely take pictures of people 2 feet away and they never knew it. And they're dirt cheap. Minox 35GTs are also dirt cheap and have a great lens, but no rangefinder.</p>

<p>The Canon P and Canon 7 are underappreciated great rangefinder cameras in good working condition, the 7 especially. I still have my Leica CL and it's small and great, the only problem is that it uses a battery you can't get anymore so you have to use zinc airs which don't last long.</p>

<p>Since you don't say what your budget is, if it's bigger, a Leica M6 with a few lenses is probably the best outfit for this sort of thing and M6's are bargain priced these days (for Leica -- i.e. expensive, but not as expensive as they once were). But then at this higher price range, a Canon 5D mk II or one of the newest Nikon DSLRs will give you ISO performance film can only dream of, or so they say. Good luck.</p>

<p>Recent Voigtlanders are heavy/bloated by comparison to Kx, and much more expensive lenswise. And they're LOUD by comparison to antique Leicas, not to mention Hexar AF. How important is the sound?</p>

<p>I finally switched from a pair of Canon P (more rugged than Bessa or Leica, smaller than Bessa, to K20D partially because I wanted occasionally to use 3200 ISO and Ilford's looked intolerably mushy. If I'd wanted small/light I'd have gone with Kx. I slapped black tape on the Pentax, carry it with a pancake, and think of it as an ultra-rugged, somewhat fat rangefinder. </p>

<p>I also (nostalgia) use a Hexar AF @ 1200 with Neopan 400, rated 1200/Rodinal 1+200 stand processed...or Fuji NPZ800, which readily has an extra stop of low light latitude and is easily pushed a stop . Nikon V scanner. HexarAF is more quiet than any conventional rangefinder, brighter viewfinder frame.</p>

<p>There's no low light focus problem with DSLRs if your primes allow manual focus for zone focusing. Pentax M lenses, for example... Famous photographers of yesteryear commonly zone focused in low light. <br>

<em> </em></p>

<p> <br /><em></em></p>

<p>Recent Voigtlanders are heavy/bloated by comparison to Kx, and much more expensive lenswise. And they're LOUD by comparison to antique Leicas, not to mention Hexar AF. How important is the sound?</p>

<p>I finally switched from a pair of Canon P (more rugged than Bessa or Leica, smaller than Bessa, to K20D partially because I wanted occasionally to use 3200 ISO and Ilford's looked intolerably mushy. If I'd wanted small/light I'd have gone with Kx. I slapped black tape on the Pentax, carry it with a pancake, and think of it as an ultra-rugged, somewhat fat rangefinder. </p>

<p>I also (nostalgia) use a Hexar AF @ 1200 with Neopan 400, rated 1200/Rodinal 1+200 stand processed...or Fuji NPZ800, which readily has an extra stop of low light latitude and is easily pushed a stop . Nikon V scanner. HexarAF is more quiet than any conventional rangefinder, brighter viewfinder frame.</p>

<p>There's no low light focus problem with DSLRs if your primes allow manual focus for zone focusing. Pentax M lenses, for example... Famous photographers of yesteryear commonly zone focused in low light. <br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>Thx for all the responses -<br>

George - nice images - thx for adding these - the Konica Hexar might be ideal for what I want - however it's become something of a cult camera and not too easy to find. <br>

John - I was initially leaning towards film but always try to keep an open mind and get feedback from those with real world (vs heresay) experience - hence the qns re the Pentax kx. <br>

I know that new DSLRs (d700/5Ds) have great ISO performance - these are way outside my price range (around $600). Maybe I'll look for a used Canonet QL III and try that for a while first.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>KEH usually has a couple of HexarAF. Got mine there. Bargain condition, ie mechanically perfect. Incredible 35/2 lens. Brilliant, accurate bright frame. A keeper, I got it a strap from <a href="http://www.upstrap.com">www.upstrap.com</a> (the version intended for Canon G9). Got a pair of batteries with it about a year ago...no voltage drop on the first one yet.</p>

<p>K-x has some obvious pros; better high iso, possibly better DR, and in general digital is just so much easier to work with, not mention all the other modern conveniences.<br>

film/rangefinders have some big pluses too; texture, really grainy film prints still look better than noisy digital prints(subjective). Rangefinders are extremely unassuming, they don't look expensive and they make very little noise. Makeing film look good is a pain, but when it works it really works imo better than b&w digital at it's best(this is not a wholehearted recomendation of film, personally I'd rather have 10 great digital images than 1 exceptional film image, but that's just me).<br>

Personally, I've been on the lookout for a deal on a mamiya 6 for just this type of work. The 6 is a medium format collapseable rangefinder, it's similar in size to a k-x(not kidding!), has excellent interchangeable lenses, flash sync at all speeds, and a big bright rangefinder. Someday someone will make a medium format digital with this same design and it will be the greatest camera ever.<br>

Don't waste your money on the old looking mamiya 6 folders on ebay, they're old and don't have a meter, or much i the way of reliability. They newer models are black, have a good metering system, and much more solid build.</p>

<p>I can't speak for the film experience. The high ISO in K-x often allows me to do more on available lights. The best combo with the K-x are the Pentax DA limited lens. The manual focusing is debatable as some users like it and some prefer other better bodies. I prefer my K20D body for MF for various reasons as in bigger VF, PentaPrism, my habit in using red dot focal point for MF reference. Due to use of bifocal glass, I often rely on the center red focal point as reference along with the AF hexagon confirmation at bottom. In K-x, the red dot is absent and one need to rely either on eyesight, or the green hexagon on manual focusing. I think K-x is good enough for MF but it is lacking a bit when compared to K-7 and K20D.</p>

<p>Here are some of my snapshot processing just in iphoto to turn some of my high iso shots from 1600 to 10,000 iso shots to b&w with some funky processing (which may read nothing) on the shots</p>

<p align="center">1/50 sec, f/7.1, 40mm, iso 5000, 0 Ev with DA 40mm f/2.8</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4207035018_5af0674aa1_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></p>

<p align="center"> </p>

<p align="center">1/50 sec, f/7.1, 40mm, 10,000 iso, 0 Ev with DA 40mm f/2.8</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2711/4207034934_5bd3f27605_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></p>

<p align="center"> </p>

<p align="center">1/60 sec, f/5.0, 40mm, iso 6400, 0 Ev</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2693/4207035160_725d47e012_b.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="1024" /></p>

<p align="center"> </p>

<p align="center">1/80 sec, f/4.0, 40mm, iso 1250, 0 Ev with DA 40mm f/2.8</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4206276187_d70156f585_b.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="1024" /></p>

<p align="center"> </p>

<p align="center">1/100 sec, f/3.5, 200mm, iso 6400, 0 Ev with Tamron SP 200mm f/3.5 adaptall-2<br /> MF is harder to do as I don't have the red focal point as reference to the eye<br /> from a far distance as in 15 to 20 feet in dim lighting</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2746/4207034616_67d1d20429_b.jpg" alt="" width="767" height="1024" /></p>

<p>The resizing on the horizontal pictures may take away some sharpness on the shots<br>

1/50 sec, f/7.1, 40mm, iso 5000, 0 Ev with DA 40mm f/2.8<br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4207035018_5af0674aa1.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>and here is a shot where I use a $40 Pentax AF280FT and Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5<br>

1/15 sec, f/3.2, 19mm, iso 640, +0.7 Ev with bounced flash<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4184988965_4bd4517fb9.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>1/15 sec, f/5.6, 17mm, iso 1250, +0.7 Ev with bounced flash<br>

I am new to my auto flash and I think I have used it in wrong setting with snapshoting<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2715/4185745068_2d1e6f127b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>If you expect a quiet camera, that is not the Pentax K-x. It is quite loud. But so far, I have not found it to be a problem in shooting in church and coffee shop where I ask for permissions before hand. It is loud and I do have to pay attention if my shooting disrupt people around me. I wish my K-x is as quiet as the K-7 which I don't have. And you can reference my month long of test shots with <a href="http://www.techtheman.com/search/label/k-x">my white K-x in my blog</a> . I do like it for indoor, candid shots. It is in no way a replacement for K-7 or K20D and I see it as a big compliment to my K20D or a K-7 if you consider compact body is important. I will recommend it as a competent back up body or a s light traveling combo especially if you are planning for DA or FA limited lens.</p>

<p>I'm a bit puzzled by the comparison of the K-<em>x</em> to Tri-X. Tri-X is a very grainy film. That is one of the reasons <em>why</em> some people shoot Tri-X -- they <em>like </em> the very noticeable graininess of it. I would guess that the K-<em>x</em> at ISO 3200 or even 6400 is going to have less noise (grain) than Tri-X at 400.</p>

<p>So, the question is... do you <em>want </em> grain, or do you <em>not</em> want grain?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"is kx viewfinder pentamirror is inferior to pentaprism?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The K-<em>x</em> viewfinder uses a pentamirror; however, Pentax's pentamirror viewfinders tend to be a bit larger/brighter/clearer than the pentamirror viewfinders from Canon, Nikon, et al.</p>

<p>I have been following along and I must sat that I am in R.T. camp 100%</p>

<p>I am new to film and I recently shoot a couple of Kodah Professional BW400CW and I find the grain quite smooth and I used my ricoh xr-p with the bw film along with my K-x in a dark restaurant. With K-x, all bw conversion is fast but I never manage to get close to film like. But film is more expensive to enjoy as I still use a lab to develop and scan. </p>

<p>I use ricoh xr-p with kodah bw400cw, Cosina 55mm f/1.2 in K-mount, develop and scan from lab while having similar pictures posted above on my wife, I prefer the film look over what I converted in software from the K-x. <br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2567/4207174213_0b2b22bd15_b.jpg" alt="" width="692" height="1024" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kodak BW400CN is a very nice film, and it's very convenient because it is C41 process, which means it can be processed at any lab that can handle regular color print film.</p>

<p>BW400CN actually has the finest grain of any C41 film currently on the market. Even finer than the various ISO 100 color print films. I enjoyed it very much back when I was still shooting film.</p>

<p>Tri-X is a completely different beast. Much, much grainier than BW400CN. But it has a certain "character" that many people like.</p>

<p>Thank you R.T. as I am very new to film, that Kodah BW400CN happens to be the only b&w film that are carried by a lot of stores like Walmart at a decent price. And once I start using it, I totally get hooked as I can do both daytime and indoor photo and I especially love the detail in that film. My lab suggests me to set asa to 200 for some reason. </p>

<p>The K-x and DA 40mm f/2.8 is quite a combo if high ISO and compactness is what you are looking for. But please ask around if K-x does well in MF. I find it reasonably good but I still prefer K20D or my previous body with K10D and K100D for a better body with MF lenses. </p>

 

<p align="center">Pentax K-x white and Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 limited<br /> my most favorite combo</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4147959956_8cb18995f9.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>On film, I am onto the next try out roll with Fuji Neopan 400 Professional on my Ricoh xr-p and Cosina 55mm f/1.2 in K-mount</p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2614/4207534102_e31632c1d5.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4206775341_84a467ed3e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

<p>This feedback/forum is great - hope others are getting something out of this discussion. WRT the choice of film - I just picked TRI X as an example as it is relatively to push to 800-1600 (with Diafine developer).<br>

There are lots of other film choices that can provide less grain, but probably at a lower ISO speed. Some grain is OK and to be expected - possibly more important to me is comparing the useable dynamic range of B&W film (pick your poison) with a (newer) sensor such as that in the K-x DSLR. It's also possible to remove some grain in post processing (Neat Image, Noise Ninja etc).<br>

To R.T. - FWIW Ilford XP2 and BW400CN are great films and can be scanned with ICE - however they are C41 and cannot be processed outside a lab (I want to develop/scan my own film) - further I'm not aware if either of these can be push processed. Just thought I'd add this for anyone who comes across this thread in the future. <br>

Again, thanks to all for the feedback and comments here - keep them coming!</p>

 

<p>C41 films can be pushed, but finding a lab that actually knows how to do that would be very difficult. It certainly isn't something that your typical drugstore lab would be able to do, and even some photo stores wouldn't know how or wouldn't be capable of doing it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Brenden,<br>

Check out the Canon G11 and S90 one of them may be just what you are looking for if shooting discreetly in low light is your 'thing'. You will have to shoot RAW though..not a big deal IMHO.</p>