Any advice on good point and shoot for dark pictures

[npmommie]

I have 2 point shoot camaras, a canon and a panasonic lumix.
i want something that takes good pics in dark conditions without the flash. each camara i have now does a terrible job, either its too dark, or its blurry, when i use the flash, i light things up that i don't want to. like that guy with the grey hair in my mgm osborne lights pic.
Do i have to go to a dig slr? i like simple to use, since i don't really understand all the photography stuff with settings.
is there a simple point and shoot that would work in these conditions. i have been reading reviews on different camara sites, and fuji keeps coming up, but i haven't found anything else, any advice?

 

[Groucho]

All point-n-shoots struggle in low-light conditions. This is an unavoidable by-product of them being so small. They have very small sensors compared to a DSLR - usually about 1/15th the size:

Most PnS cameras have a 1/2.5" sensor, versus the APS sensor in most DSLRs.

Certain Fujis have a 1/1.7" or 1/1.6" sensor, this helps a lot but is still way smaller than a DSLR. A couple non-Fuji point-n-shoots have 1/1.8" sensors in some models, but those are rare and none are long-zooms except Fuji.

For Fuji, you have to look for the SuperCCD HR models - generally that means the F30, F31, and F40 for pocket cameras, and the S6000 and S9100 for long-zoom. Don't get anything with more than 8mp.

We recently replaced my wife's Canon SD600 (1/2.5" sensor) with a Fuji F40 (1/1.6" sensor) and it is much more capable at night, though it is certainly not a perfect pocket point-n-shoot, either - but I think it's probably the best all-around currently, in that it's affordable, takes SD cards, has the best low-light performance, and you can generally work around some of its annoyances (like going to a high ISO when shooting with the flash.)

 

[npmommie]

Groucho, thank you so much for that, it helps, and makes sense now. I had no idea what those sensor numbers meant.
maybe i should just get a dslr and just use the pocket cameras when i don't want to carry the dslr around.
there are times when i just want to get better pics than what the pocket will do.
i checked both my cameras and they both have the 2.5 sensor

 

[pjacobi]

Sensor size has nothing to do with light gathering capability!

An acurate exposure is achieved by a correct combination of ISO, shutter speed and aperture.

P/S camera generally have limited range of setting, while a digital SLR has a much wider range.

Digital camera technology is rapidly improving, so today's camera are much better than last years cameras, because of higher ISO sensors and improvents in focusing allowing the use of lower aperture lenses.

Sensor size has *nothing* to do with achieving a correct exposure in low light conditions.


-Paul

 

[ukcatfan]

Sensor size has nothing to do with light gathering capability!

An acurate exposure is achieved by a correct combination of ISO, shutter speed and aperture.

P/S camera generally have limited range of setting, while a digital SLR has a much wider range.

Digital camera technology is rapidly improving, so today's camera are much better than last years cameras, because of higher ISO sensors and improvents in focusing allowing the use of lower aperture lenses.

Sensor size has *nothing* to do with achieving a correct exposure in low light conditions.


-Paul

Why are you so fired up? This is supposed to be a friendly board. It was not bad information. Also, if you are going to be that critical, then you should at least make sure that you are 100% correct and provide the support. You are not exactly correct by saying, "P/S camera generally have limited range of setting, while a digital SLR has a much wider range." For shutter speed, the range is exactly the same between both types. The aperture is typically starting around f/2.8 on a p&s, so that is not too much different (true you can buy a wider aperture lens on a DSLR though). Also, the ISO range is not much different between a p&s or a DSLR either. Some p&s cameras go really high now. What is really different is that the larger sensor allows a more usable high ISO compared to a p&s. The 1600 on my K100D is cleaner than the 400 on my S2 IS. The newer p&s cams that seem to have somewhat clean high ISOs are almost always increasing the software noise reduction which lowers the noise at the expense of fine detail.

We all wish that a p&s could do low light well. The technology is just not there yet.

Kevin

 

[alan]

Paul,

You are right in saying that sensor size has nothing to do with light gathering capability.

HOWEVER, as you squeeze more pixels onto a specific size of sensor, so it takes fewer photos hitting each sensor to turn it from fully black to fully white. So we hit a fundamental law of physics, which tells us that sensor noise is related to the size of each individual sensor (out of the siz or eight million on the CCD).

And so far, nobody seems to have worked a way around the base physics :-( dSLRs are the best low-light cameras because they have the largest pixels.

regards,
/alan

PS I used to work for the Scottish branch of a company whose parent department was located in Spitbrook Road, Nashua. I was sorry to read that the office was closing down :-(

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Sensor size has nothing to do with light gathering capability!

Huh? Well I guess it's not directly related, but the indirect relationship is quite substantial.

Correct exposure and light gathering ability aren't quite the same thing. A really crummy sensor set to a proper ISO, aperture, and shutter speed for the light levels will give a proper exposure. It will also give a much noisier exposure than a better sensor. Smaller sensors don't affect the basic rules of exposure, but they do affect the noise level.

The reason for that, as has already been stated, is that smaller sensor tend to use proportionally smaller pixels. The pixels on a DSLR range from around 20 to 80 square micrometers in size. The pixels on a high end P&S (like the Canon G9 with it's 1/1.7" sensor) are around 2 to 4 square micrometers in size. In other words, each pixel on a DSLR has something like a tenfold advantage in the amount of light hitting it. There is also an increase in electrical noise per micrometer with larger chips, but not nearly enough to overcome their enormous light gathering advantage.

Signal-to-noise ratio for CCD and CMOS sensors have certainly improved over time, but those improvements occur for all sizes of chips. So while a really good point&shoot today might have noise characteristics for a given ISO level comparable to an early DSLR, they are unquestionably not in the same league as a modern DSLR.

So from a practical standpoint, sensor size really does matter. If you'd prefer imperical evidence, just compare reviews showing the noise profiles of different cameras.

Of course, there are other advantages to a DSLR for low light shooting, such as the availability of lenses with wider apertures. They also use mechanical shutters, allowing them to keep their sensors cooler and thus more free from noise. Finally, as you alluded to, they provide more control for the user so that a skilled user can more fully utilize the capabilities of the camera.

 

[Spinning]

here is my first question....do you really in your heart want a DSLR? Because if you do...then no point and shoot camera will do what you really want.

I have the fuji s6000. I absolutely love it...meets all my needs. Takes very good low light pictures. Not always perfect but enough to make me happy. It has many features. I think with my limited knowledge and desire to learn the DSLR would be wasted on me. I can play with this camera and also use it as a point and shoot. Which I know I could also do with a DSLR but this camera runs around $325......

 

[boBQuincy]

All electronics generates noise, thermal noise among others. Thermal noise increases with temperature. Many of the higher end dSLRs have a magnesium chassis, which is no better than plastic for most uses *but* it is far better for sinking heat away from the sensor and electronics.

It is about impossible to amplify the signal (image) without amplifying the noise as well, so metal chassis = less noise = better signal.

 

[pjacobi]

The original post complained of images being "too dark, or blurry". These are symptoms of an incorrect exposure which can be done with a $100 P/S camera or $10,000 dSLR.

I suggest upgrading to a new P/S camera to take advantage of higher ISO and image stabilization that will be more likely to make a correct exposure.

I would only suggest use of a dSLR if the original poster wants to take the time to learn how to use it properly.

Fix the exposure problem first, then worry about sensor size and signal-to-noise ratio.


-Paul

 

[pjacobi]

PS I used to work for the Scottish branch of a company whose parent department was located in Spitbrook Road, Nashua. I was sorry to read that the office was closing down :-(

Yes, we are all still in a state of shock. Big sigh.


-Paul

 

[npmommie]

here is my first question....do you really in your heart want a DSLR? Because if you do...then no point and shoot camera will do what you really want.

I have the fuji s6000. I absolutely love it...meets all my needs. Takes very good low light pictures. Not always perfect but enough to make me happy. It has many features. I think with my limited knowledge and desire to learn the DSLR would be wasted on me. I can play with this camera and also use it as a point and shoot. Which I know I could also do with a DSLR but this camera runs around $325......

Ok, I guess what I want is to take the kind of pictures a dslr is capable of but with a point and shoot. LOL...........not gonna happen I guess.
I like being able to throw my camara in my purse or pocket when I go places with the kids, I like that it isn;t bulky to carry around, but I also like being able to take nice shots of the kids..........I have an OLD film slr camara, that I on occasion use around the house, but its a dinosaur, but takes lovely pics.
but anyway, I thought about something like a G9 Canon.
the canon i have is old its the A520, the Lumix i have is just a basic I grabbed on sale at circuit city its the LZ7.........just basic p&s both of these. the canon has manual controls, but I never use them, I really don't have the patience I guess to learn what I would need to make full use of a DSLR. maybe I will have to relook at the Fuji's suggested.
also would you say to get a p&s with manual controls and learn how to properly use them? i usually just pick something from the "scene" mode on either camara, sometimes i get beautiful shots lots of times I don't, mostly the low light conditions.

 

[npmommie]

let me also see if I understand the sensor thing too.
If I see 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 for sensor size, the 1/1.7 would be considered better on a P&S?

 

[ukcatfan]

let me also see if I understand the sensor thing too.
If I see 1/2.5 or 1/1.7 for sensor size, the 1/1.7 would be considered better on a P&S?

It is a basic fraction. Just like 1/2 is larger than 1/4, 1/1.7 is larger than 1/2.5. Not sue why, but it seems like Fuji does the best job at taking advantage of the larger p&s sensors.

On a side note, Sigma announced a p&s (DP-1) based on a DSLR size sensor (APS-C) with a fixed focal length lens, but I do not believe they ever got it to market. That should be something to look for in the near future though.

Kevin

 

[SharonLowe]

Ok, I guess what I want is to take the kind of pictures a dslr is capable of but with a point and shoot. LOL...........not gonna happen I guess.
I like being able to throw my camara in my purse or pocket when I go places with the kids, I like that it isn;t bulky to carry around, but I also like being able to take nice shots of the kids..........I have an OLD film slr camara, that I on occasion use around the house, but its a dinosaur, but takes lovely pics.
but anyway, I thought about something like a G9 Canon.
the canon i have is old its the A520, the Lumix i have is just a basic I grabbed on sale at circuit city its the LZ7.........just basic p&s both of these. the canon has manual controls, but I never use them, I really don't have the patience I guess to learn what I would need to make full use of a DSLR. maybe I will have to relook at the Fuji's suggested.
also would you say to get a p&s with manual controls and learn how to properly use them? i usually just pick something from the "scene" mode on either camara, sometimes i get beautiful shots lots of times I don't, mostly the low light conditions.

The G9 is a nice camera but gets bad reviews for high ISO images (anything above 200) so it isn't really going to solve your low light image requirements unless you also invest in a tripod so you can take longer exposures. The biggest advantage of the G9 is that it shoots in RAW but I doubt that interests you. I suggest a trip over here http://www.dpreview.com/ to look at p&s cameras with good ratings for higher iso work.

Then, you also need to learn to use the features of the camera to get the best shot. A good camera does not make a good photographer; a good photographer can make a good shot with almost any camera. And, you don't need a dSLR to get good shots. I send my hubby off with his p&s all the time on his business trips and he comes back with stuff that I can sell through my stock agencies. He knows photography and how to compose, etc. so he does fine with his p&s.

 

[seashoreCM]

The typical SLR accommodates an f/1.4 lens while very few point-and-shoots have a lens faster than f/2.8. This is a two stop or four fold difference in light gathering capability.

For shutter speed, SLR's and point-and-shoots are equal. Either will give you a blurry picture if the shutter speed is slow and you don't use a tripod. Either can be had with image stabilization that will probably make up for a halving of the shutter speed or one f stop worth of gathered light.

For ISO, the probable difference in performance is two f/stops worth of sensitivity, namely the sensor in a good SLR allows four times the ISO for a given noise level. (Double the ISO and close the aperture one f/stop and the resulting picture is equally birght)

Taking into account the choice of lens and the ISO, the SLR in general has a 16 fold light gathering/utilization advantage or a 4 f/stop dark shooting advantage over the point-and-shoot. Many point-and-shoots will hold their shutters open that much longer so with a tripod they can get almost the same performance as an SLR without a tripod.

Digital camera hints: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/digicam.htm

 

[Groucho]

First off, I'd appreciate someone actually reading what I wrote before writing "wrong, wrong, wrong." I never said anything about exposure. (And if you want to sit here and pick nits all night, blurriness has nothing to do with exposure, either, it has to do with poor focusing or too slow of a shutter speed.)

The fact is that the tiny sensor size of a PnS camera is why they are terrible in low light. Too many megapixels being squeezed out of something too small. Are you actually debating that fact? Higher ISO doesn't equal better quality. You could put 12,800 ISO on a 1/2.5" sensor PnS but it'll look like garbage, and most of these newer PnSs that are advertising higher ISO speeds are delivering unusable results. ISO may be the next megapixel, in terms of catchphrase that the big companies use to sell to uninformed consumers.

Unfortunately, the fact is, if you want really good low-light functionality, you have no choice but to go with a DSLR, because of the sensor size. And I also don't agree with the notion that unless you're a serious user who can balance ISO, shutter, and aperture without breaking a sweat, you have no business using a DSLR. DSLRs are easy enough for anyone to use.

On a side note, Sigma announced a p&s (DP-1) based on a DSLR size sensor (APS-C) with a fixed focal length lens, but I do not believe they ever got it to market. That should be something to look for in the near future though.

Sigma just recently announced that it's delayed as it wasn't producing the image quality that they were hoping for - it will probably still see the light of day but IMHO a big price tag for a single focal length from a company mostly unknown to the average camera buyer means that it'll a niche camera (and then some!)

 

[alan]

DSLRs are easy enough for anyone to use.

I agree with almost all of what you say, Groucho, with the exception of the above. Many users who are not willing to learn about photography find the DOF restrictions of dSLRs a problem. At least with a P&S, then pretty much everything is normally in focus!

Me, I use a dSLR when I find it appropriate and a P&S on other occasions.

regards,
/alan

 

[npmommie]

Then, you also need to learn to use the features of the camera to get the best shot. A good camera does not make a good photographer; a good photographer can make a good shot with almost any camera. And, you don't need a dSLR to get good shots. I send my hubby off with his p&s all the time on his business trips and he comes back with stuff that I can sell through my stock agencies. He knows photography and how to compose, etc. so he does fine with his p&s.

So would you then say a p&s with manual controls is the better choice? my canon has manual and the panasonic does not.
but i never learned how to use any on the canon anyway, just always picked a "scene" mode.
i do have some shots from a wedding last night, that i took with the Lumix.
i need to get them into this puter first, then i will post them

 

[ukcatfan]

So would you then say a p&s with manual controls is the better choice? my canon has manual and the panasonic does not.
but i never learned how to use any on the canon anyway, just always picked a "scene" mode.
i do have some shots from a wedding last night, that i took with the Lumix.
i need to get them into this puter first, then i will post them

I guess it comes down to what low light shots you are trying to take. If there is nothing moving in the shot, use a camera with manual controls and a tripod. If there are moving subjects in low light, then you are going to need a DSLR with a decent lens. The DSLR gives you a higher quality high ISO shot and the lens gets you a wide aperture. For really low light, I use my K100D DSLR, at ISO1600, with a 50mm f/1.4 lens and even then I find times where my shutter speed needed to correctly expose is too long. The following shot is from my camera at ISO 1600 and f/1.4:

Not that my shot is great or anything, but I would not dream of getting that with a p&s.

Kevin