Looking for recommended camera for low light

[gamul1]

Hi,

I am looking for recommendations of cameras that are truly good at low light photography. My budget is only up to around $400ish, which lets out a pure SLR. But I am not sure my comfort level would be that high on an SLR anyway.

I have trouble with low light shots with my Canon SD 550. The shots are too grainy and poor quality. Two examples of situation that my current camera did not do well were:

1) At the beach I was up before sun rise and tried to take some pictures of the awesome sun light through the clouds. The images just did not cut it in the early minutes. The later images which were not as beautiful did come out, but I missed some great lighting shots.

2) I was recently in a barn for a gathering and tried to take some pictures of my son, who was across the barn. The light was low partly due to cloudy day, partly because it was indoors. The images sucked. I was taking the pictures from about 20-30 feet away. Very grainy. not printable. It was even worse with a flash. This issue is killing me personally as it interferes with the type of pictures I like to take.


OK - here are the standard questions/answers:

***********************
Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
Up to around $400. Would prefer less but could maybe go a little higher.

Size

* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
Does not matter. I'm looking for great images not great comfort.

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?
Not sure. The majority of my shots are for simple 4x6 but I print out some 5x7 and 8x10. Don't see myself going larger. I would think I could get away with about an 8 mega pixel but I don't mind paying for a little more.

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
I would love an ultra zoom but it should at least have a standard zoom.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
10. Especially at low light.

Do you care for manual controls?
Don't mind some but if the only way I can get my shots is through pure manual then so be it.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
All purpose camera. But my most important shots are landscapes. Sunrise/sunsets. I also take a lot of really close macro shots, particularly in the woods. I love getting as close as I can and really want the fine detail that the close shots provide.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
occasional 8x10, mainly 5x7 and 4x6.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?
YES! Yes! Yes! So, Low light is #1. Of course, good quality images in any light is important, but I have yet to see any of the good cameras not take good shots in bright light. I "assume" whatever I find that is good at low light will be good at other light.


Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?
Some, but not my most important usage here.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?
I am cautious of the Canon after some tough times with the Sd models and an error with the lens, E18 or some thing like that. However, i will not avoid any camera that fits the need.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Looking at Consumer reports, they rate the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W200 as the only camera that still has a quality picture at anything close to ISO 1600. But the number of cameras they reviewed is only a fraction of what is out there. I am not focused on that model, only mention it as one that caught my eye on consumer reports.

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
Seems like image stabilization would be good, but if that is the blocking factor then I won't worry about it.

Thanks in advance!
Glenn

[David Metsky]

Many cameras have high ISO settings. Very few take usable pictures at those high ISO settings. The only ones that really did a very good job were the Fuji F30 and F31d (and F40), none of which are still being made. If you can find one of those, snap them up.

Otherwise your best answer is a used DSLR with a fast 50mm lens.

[AndyfromVA]

You need a point and shoot camera that can take good looking photos at ISO 400, 800 and perhaps 1600. While there isn't any point and shoot camera today that can match the low light ability of the Fuji F31fd, there are many that come close.

Here are some cameras that will probably be able to do a good job for you:
Fuji F100fd, Fuji S8100fd, Sony H10, Sony H50, Sony W150, Canon SD890IS, Canon SD770IS, Canon A650IS, Canon G9.

[gamul1]

Thanks for the feedback!

Assuming I am unable to find the older models like the F31d - When looking at newer models, is there a specific specification that would indicate to me that a camera may be better at low light photos than others I am looking at? Most list high ISO as an option but few perform at those settings.

It seems like having shutter and aperture priority is a key feature. What about pixel density as something to consider?

Sorry for the dumb newbie questions. I'm just not sure how to tell what the most critical specification is in making this decision.

On a side note - I have read in other threads about how some older no longer available camera was much better than any on the market today at doing "something". I don't understand how cameras are getting worse on certain features (like low light) and not better as technology improves. Why are manufacturers making poorer cameras on those features and not better? Are they just focusing on the eye candy features like mega pixels at the sacrifice of quality?

Thanks again,

Glenn

[dtoman519]

Hi. I am in no way a professional... Just wanted to offer my personal opinion...

I mainly take pictures of my two young daughters. I take all kind of different pictures, indoors with low light conditions, outdoor, and action shots (daughter plays soccer and basketball)

I had an olympus 1010 and had the same horrible results as you described. I returned the olympus and purchased the Sony H-50 to replace it. I love this camera. The pictures have all turned out very nice even when using the zoom. I have even had fantastic results with indoor photos of my daughters. I am also very impressed with the action shots. Overall, I am extremely satisfied with this camera!

the only issue I have come across, is that sometimes when using the flash it takes a few seconds before you can take another photo. But, I am willing to deal with that to get such nice quality photos. (It has a burst mode that works well too, I haven't had any blurry pictures yet)

Just wanted to share my own personal opinions since this was a camera mentioned in this thread....

[AndyfromVA]

Newer cameras have more megapixels crowded onto small sensors. This leads to increased digital noise. However, newer cameras also have better processors, which greatly improves picture quality.

There is a consensus that the Fuji F31fd was a better low light point and shoot than anything available today. However, most older cameras are inferior to the newer ones, overall.

[gamul1]

Sigh. I think I am coming to the conclusion that I need to consider an SLR. There just appears to be no way a non SLR is going to really give me what I want.

Damn - there so expensive though. Maybe a good quality used one off of ebay or something.

I'll look through the other threads on this forum for SLR recommendations. If I have questions after that (I am sure I will), I post a new thread.

I know so little about SLRs - lens etc. What the heck I need with it. Its never as simple as the P&S. :-(

Thanks All!

Glenn

[KCook]

While Fuji has dropped the F40fd from their current listings, the same camera is still being sold by the Ritz stores as the Fuji F45fd. I know 'cuz I have one. But I didn't buy it for the low light ability. Haven't even played with it that way, so I cannot say with absolute certainty that it excels at that. But the price is low enough, well under $200, that you may want to buy one as a trial. I've found Ritz to be VERY good about returns. Returned a Sony there before buying this Fuji from them.

Easily NUMBER ONE factor for low light is sensor size. Talking physical size in inches, not MegaPixels. And the Fuji F45fd does have a bigger sensor than most compacts. Even so, sensor size is not a sure fire guarantee of low light bliss. As the earlier cameras all had big sensors, cheaper to make. So there are still instances where the big sensor simply means econo camera, not performance. Go to the Newegg site and you can search (or "filter") their cameras by sensor size.

Other factors are:
Lens speed (aperture)
The name Fujifilm (couldn't resist)
LOW Mp size (hard to find any cameras under 8Mp these days however)
Latest, greatest processor
Modest zoom
Manual controls (including AV or aperture priority)

But honestly, best bet is to buy from a store that makes returns easy. You never know.

Kelly Cook

[@dam]

The reason a lot of newer cameras can't beat cameras like the F30 at high iso is because of pixel density- i.e. lot of pixels on the same size or smaller sensor. The two things most consumers look for are megapixels and price. Therefore the trend is more pixels on a smaller sensor. This means the photosites (the 'pixels') are smaller, and gather fewer photons each during an exposure. This means the signal needs to be further amplified, and the signal to noise ratio is reduced. However, some software tricks like noise reduction have largely been able to counteract this trend, but sometimes (like with the F30), it hasn't been able to keep up.

The F30 and 31 by the way, have a relatively large sensor with large photosites for the sensor size, and a relatively wide aperature, all of which help in low light. However, it still applies a LOT of noise reduction at high ISO, smudging out a lot of detail in the process for a 'water color effect'. This sort of noise reduction is easily applied to ANY photo in post-processing.