Low noise at high ISOs, or IS? Which is more important?

[bastetbabe27]

Dear all,

I'm looking for a compact P&S that's easier for me to carry around than my FZ5. For its long zoom, the FZ5 is nice and small, but I wan't something I can stick into a smallish purse as a supplemental camera to take to parties and family gatherings. So, good low light no flash photos are a must. And I like taking spur-of-the-moment candid shots (arms around the shoulder, everybody smile! shots all start to look the same after a while), so a camera that'll give me a good shot without lots of tweaking would be good. (Wait, make that face again, my shot's blurry! kills the moment). Am I asking for the impossible?

I'm currently looking at the Fuji F30, the Canon SD700 IS, and the A710 IS. The low noise shots of the Fuji are impressive, but it doesn't have IS. The Canons seem less desirable in the noise category, but both have IS and longer zooms (4x and 6x respectively), which is nice.

So, to my question. If I want to take a low light shot without a tripod, like at a party, and end up with something usable, --i.e, not blurry and preferably less noisy, what characteristic is more important-- low noise at higher ISOs or IS?

- Alyssa

[David Metsky]

For shots of people without flash, you want low noise at high ISO. Your subject will be moving; IS can't help with that.

-dave-

[bastetbabe27]

Ok then, that's all I really needed to know. People go on about how IS helps eliminate blur in low light shooting, but I wasn't sure if high ISOs also helped do the same thing, or do the same thing better.

- bastetbabe27

[tim11]

IS is really misleading term. All it does is minimising (your own) hand shaking effect no Stabilising the Image like the term implies. So if your subject is moving IS will not be effective and in such situation you need to shoot at higher shutter speed. That's where clean image at higher ISO comes handy.

[bastetbabe27]

So, a further question. Looking at various reviews, it seems alot of the more experienced camera users felt that to really get good outdoor shots in brighter light, the F30 needed tweaking with manual modes. (Purple fringing issues, blown out highlights, etc.) "Extaordinary but limited" was one phrase used to describe the F30.

Though ideally I would get one new camera for my parents, and one for me, it seems likely that we'll need to get one to share, at least for a while.

It's safe to say my parents are techno-phobes. They don't even know how to use e-mail. (Makes me want to tear my hair out). That said, they won't be able (or as I see it, won't try) to learn to use the manual settings on a digital camera.

So, are the F30's automatic settings sufficient to get nice pictures in a wide range of situations with no adjusments? I really mean no adjusments, turning the flash on and off is about the limit of what they're willing/able to do. And even that might be difficult...

Bottom line: Would the F30 or one of the Canons be better for use with only automatic settings? Or does the good high ISO performance make the F30 even more of a no-brainer?

-bastetbabe27

[tim11]

....
"Extaordinary but limited" was one phrase used to describe the F30.


If the phrase contains the word EXTRAORDINARY it means a lot. I can't say much about those Canon cameras but with F30 there is one mode dial AUTO (also auto-flash) and many scene modes including one for NATURAL LIGHT with FLASH. Those modes should be ideal for those who just want to turn on and shoot.

[Riley]

I think you would have to define what is high iso
given small sensor cameras do not generally exhibit good iso performance
many wont make 800 iso, is 800 high, I think not. Is 800 usefull? certainly

but I guess compared to times back in film days we are probably a little better off. You dont have to swap rolls to change iso, and if you are a black and white fan, the noise exhibited will be reminicent of grain.

Riley

[bastetbabe27]

I guess by "high ISO" I mean over 400. :confused: I'm talking in P&S terms here, not dSLRs. I'm not terribly knowledgable about the niceties of photography, so I don't know what's considered "high" in ISO terms. Perhaps the term you used, 'useful', would be better for what I'm asking.

Basically, I'm trying to decide between the 7/800 IS, the A710 IS, and the F30. I want to know if getting a camera with less noise at higher ISOs (F30) or a camera with IS, but more noise (the canons) will get me better images, esp. low light/museum pics sans flash, at the end of the day.

[tim11]

Not all camera sensors are created equal. I am not going to be technical, but F30 sensor is unlike most sensors used in other cameras; and that enables it to be very 'useful' at 'higher' ISO. How high is high?
Why clean image is more useful than IS? I wouldn't be bothered using ISO400 on my FZ20 (with IS). Sure it is tack sharp but all very grainy. With F30 I can get up to ISO1600 and it will even be good enough for 6x4". When all else fails then that I will use ISO3200.
Don't take my words for it, you should also read professional reviews at:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_f30-review/
And note that F30 image quality is compared side by side with a Nikon D50 in
www.dcpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/page14.asp

The Canons are good all rounder cameras but if 'sans flash' is necessary, nothing beats F30 up to date.

[coldrain]

IS allows longer exposure times. So, for museums this is very helpful.
Longer exposure times mean that motion in your subject will show up (motion blur). So when you are photographing moving subjects, a shorter exposure is needed. In lower light, this is the area where better high ISO performance is an advantage.

So... both are helpful in lower light. IS only with static subjects, high ISO settings with good noise performance also for moving subjects.

For museums I'd choose IS.