FX150 raw vs SD880 / F100fd in low light

[DeFusa]

Hi, I am considering buying one of these three cameras as a good ultracompact at a reasonable price. All around the Panasonic seems to have an advantage (lower tele but an optical enhancement, much better video, some manual controls, higher resolution). The one part where it falls behind is performance in low light - high ISO (and possibly overall IQ).

Now I know that in low light and straight out of the camera the Canon (or Fuji) walks all over the Panasonic with ease. However, what would happen if one were to take a shot in low light (ISO 400-1600) as RAW, process it with a good (not pro) routine and then compare it with the same shot taken by the Canon or Fuji ? Does shooting raw + processing even out the differences in low light between the Panasonic and the competition ?

There was some discussion about this on DPreview but I'd like a definitive opinion from people that have either taken those shots or seen results that provide a clear answer. A link to a review or gallery which covers this specific issue would also be appreciated.

I am not interested in other models, unless they shoot and film at least as good as these, do not cost more and are at least as small :)

PS The same question (the benefits of PP raw versus the competition jpg) can be asked in the case of shooting in good light, since there is an IQ difference there too. Since that difference is smaller I expect the answer to this one would be more nuanced and subjective. However I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on this related and more complex matter, if you've had or seen relevant results.

[Dark Cobra]

Well the basic question seems to be whether or not RAW will be the answer for lack of light. The short and dirty answer has to be NO. RAW gets you better noise reduction, greater bit depth and headroom to work with . . . but it is not going to do much in the way of compensating for the lack of light. You would be better off with a camera that inherently does low light photography a little better rather than try to "process" light into an image. The best solution will be the camera with larger sensor and faster lens. I'd opt for the Fuji if low light were my primary objective and concern.

[DeFusa]

Your help is appreciated, but you see, the greatest issue reported (and seen) with FX150 was noise in low light conditions. So the images had decent details but they were obstructed by the heavy noise and thus rendered useless. So if raw + processing comes with a much better noise reduction, perhaps it does bring the FX150 (close) to the others.
So if anyone has seen comparison images to confirm this, I'm very much interested in it.

PS Low light is not necessarily my primary goal with the camera, but since that is the main issue with this model I am looking for ways to improve it before I decide.

[Dark Cobra]

I tried to "Google" a comparative image of a RAW FX150 image that directly compares to a similar low light image from one of the other cameras you mentioned and could not find one. Here is what I would suggest. Take your own SD card and visit a shop that has both the FX150 and the Fuji and the Canon you mentioned. Take a similar low light image from each camera. Do a RAW process on the Pany and see how it measures up.

However, you realize you will no longer be comparing apples to apples as the Pany will be receiving noise reduction processing through RAW while the others will receive no post processing. It won't be perfectly even but in reality you really should also run the images from the other cameras through a simple post processing noise reduction program such as (noise ninja, neat image, etc.). See what you come up with as a result.