Looking to purchase a new camera and asking the experts!

[havoc315]

And btw, in the 90s with a 35mm automatic camera, I could get better shots in many conditions than I can today with a digital point and shoot camera, despite my knowing far more about photography today than I did back then. Why? Because the film size was a lot bigger than the tiny sensor in most digital point and shoot cameras of today. I use a 4:3 dSLR and a Mirrorless today and I still need photoraphy knowledge to get good pictures. This can be said even of users of APS-C and full frame sensors. Big disappointment to buyers who think that that will be the key to better pictures to find out they're still not like the ones that make them ooh and aah. Getting those takes work, no matter how you slice it. Composition is important, but there's so much more.

You're talking exceptions.... For most people, under most situations, the picture taken with a 2012 top of the point and shoot camera is going to be better than the 1990s point and shoot automatic.

But I'll limit this to talking about myself:
I used a DSLR since 2006. I've used SLRs for most of my life. I am not an expert, but I am more advanced than most amateurs.
The pictures I am taking with the Sony RX100 are *better* than most of the pictures I have taken with my SLR.
I am NOT claiming that the RX100 is *better* than a DSLR. I am sure that an expert could do more with a DSLR than the RX100 or any other point and shoot. But as an amateur with moderate photography knowledge (read some books, took a couple of classes, and years and years or practice), I am taking better and more consistent pictures with the RX100.

And looking at it primarily as an exposure issue -- I went back to the 600 DSLR pictures I took on my last trip to Disney World. I'd say the exposure is really only correct in about half of them. Some of them can be saved with post processing (I shot in RAW+JPG to have the most options). But I'd rate the exposure as poor on about half the pictures.
In contrast, using basically automated settings on the RX100, my exposure has been nearly perfect in about 95 out of the 100 pictures I've taken. Including low light, including macro. Pictures that I needed a tripod for with the DSLR, are coming out beautifully with the RX100.

Now, I don't like the way I'm sounding... I sound like a television commercial for this product, I sound like a paid sponsor.

And I think before this camera, you would have been correct in advising people, that NO point & shoot will ever give you the quality of a DSLR.

But this camera honestly is a game changer. In the hands of a professional or expert, I still agree that a DSLR will give you better performance than any point & shoot.
But in the hands of a layperson, even in the hands of someone with moderate knowledge, this point & shoot in automated modes, will give pictures comparable to a DSLR.

So if we want to give people advice, let them see what the experts say:

The New York Times review:
"This is a review of the best pocket camera ever made....
No photos this good have ever come from a camera this small....
This is an ideal second camera for professionals. And it’s a great primary camera for any amateur who wants to take professional-looking photos without having to carry a camera bag."

Disney photo expert and blogger Tom Bricker:
"The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 is the best point & shoot camera ever...
That this camera can do everything that it does in such a small size almost defies the laws of science. It’s one amazing camera in one really, really small package...
It was as if the Sony RX100 was doing its best DSLR impression. It was a pretty good impression. The discerning eye could certainly tell a difference, but to have that look to a photo taken by a point and shoot camera? Wow..."

And I agree with Tom Bricker's conclusion:
"This is a truly revolutionary camera. That I’m comparing its performance to my DSLRs in areas of this review should speak volumes, given that it’s a pocket-sized, point and shoot camera. To be sure, quality is not DSLR quality in most regards, but it can be very close. Close enough that I’m betting the Sony RX100 would be a suitable replacement for a DSLR for a lot of you reading this. A point and shoot that is a suitable replacement for a DSLR for many people and is pocket sized?! I honestly never thought I would see the day. "

photo expert Steve Huff:
"The Sony RX100 Digital Camera Review – The best pocket digital compact of the year…actually…EVER!...

The good news is that the sensor in this camera ROCKS and ROCKS hard and I have never seen a small camera such as this deliver this quality in not only photo but video as well....

This Sony RX100 has all of the features, and even more, than a huge DSLR. The image quality makes no apologies to it’s bigger DSLR brothers. Sure, you can go buy a DSLR and pro lens and get sharper images and make huge *** prints but you can also do this with the RX100."

Gizmodo:
"Near-DSLR power packed into a body the size of a compact point-and-shoot camera? What's the catch?"
"There is a lot to like about the camera, but without question, the camera's focusing abilities are its best feature. In low light, bright light, near, far, or anywhere in between, images look great. The ability to pick up macro-level detail isn't easy for a camera this size (the Canon G1X proves that), yet the RX100's abilities are very good in this regard. The camera's powerful depth-of-field strength, as it focuses on something in the mid-ground, while blurring the foreground and background, gives images the stunning look that's long been a DSLR exclusive."
"This is a camera that 90% of the population can pull out of a pocket on a whim to fire off a few beautiful shots without much trouble."
"Or, let's say you're a serious photographer who doesn't want the burden of always carrying around a DSLR. The RX100 is right for you as well. No, you absolutely won't get all the same shots you can pull off with your bigger camera. But you will get some of them (especially in good light). "

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I could put together a bunch of quotes also, but suffice it to say, you're talking about one camera and it may or may not do a fantastic job for amateurs. (Which is what this thread is about.) People can certainly buy one themselves and find out. BTW, the people you quoted obviously have TONS of photography experience and can likely make just about any camera sing. It still is going to be difficult for your average non-experienced user to get great pictures with any camera, including a dSLR.

Good luck to all with their camera purchases. (Done now.)

A recap of the OP:

I am a lurker on the photography board and I am in awe of the fantastic pictures on here. We are looking to purchase a new camera. I currently have a Nikon Coolpix L810 but I have not been too happy with it. I can not get decent pictures in low light. My husband and I have both been trying to play with the settings but we just can't figure it out. If anyone has any tips on how to improve the performance of this camera I would so appreciate it.

Some of the cameras we have been looking at are the Canon sx40, the Canon Powershot sx260, the Sony hx20 and the Sony Nex 5n. I'm not sure I'm ready to invest in the Nex 5n if I can get good quality pictures out of one of the point and shoot cameras. My husband is interested in this one based on the shutter speed.

I am looking for the camera with the best low light pictures. We are attending MVMCP this year and nighttime parade & fireworks pictures are a must. I also take a lot of pictures indoors. I would like a camera that could get some decent dark ride photos with no flash. My kids are young & never sit still so I would like a camera where I can get action shots!

Thanks for any input!

A tall order indeed.

 

[zackiedawg]

I think both of you are sort of talking past eachother - there are two issues at hand, and in some ways, I think both of you are 'right', but on different planes.

What Pea is referring to, and I agree, is that the camera technology cannot achieve things like composition, or interesting subjects, or understanding of depth of field control and why, or being cognizant of horizontal lines, or having good timing to capture candid or spontensous moments. No matter how smart the auto modes, no matter how capable the sensor, these are the things that require a good photographer to get right.

What Havoc is referring to I think is that there are gains in the technology that can now make up for a few areas that amateurs once had no ability to shoot or no access to...they may not know composition, or focus depth, or complimentary colors, or even keeping horizons level...but what they can do that they never could before is take a quick, thoughtless, handheld snapshot of a child blowing out candles on a cake in an unlit room, and actually get a discernable photo of a child, with clean details and low noise, and a well lit exposure. This is something that only a professional or highly skilled photographer was even capable of in the past, because the camera technology then simply couldn't produce an automatically exposed, full auto snapshot at ISO6400 that was in any way presentable. The skilled photographer knew tricks to getting around the limitations, and therefore knew how to get that shot, but the amateur was completely out of luck. Now, with large-sensor cameras that have intelligent auto modes, access to fairly clean ISO results up to 12800, and multi-stacking modes built in, even a snapshooter with no skill can get that shot exposed.

Where Pea is right again is that the amateur's shot may have blown white balance, a pole growing out of the child's head, the entire photo tilted 30 degrees left, and the child's eyes part-closed. So is it a 'great photo'? Maybe not, unless luck was very much on that amateur's side. But is that photo exposed and captured in a way that simply wasn't possible 20 years ago unless you were a highly skilled photographer with the right tools? Yes.

So, you're both correct in my opinion.

 

[havoc315]

I think both of you are sort of talking past eachother - there are two issues at hand, and in some ways, I think both of you are 'right', but on different planes.

What Pea is referring to, and I agree, is that the camera technology cannot achieve things like composition, or interesting subjects, or understanding of depth of field control and why, or being cognizant of horizontal lines, or having good timing to capture candid or spontensous moments. No matter how smart the auto modes, no matter how capable the sensor, these are the things that require a good photographer to get right.

What Havoc is referring to I think is that there are gains in the technology that can now make up for a few areas that amateurs once had no ability to shoot or no access to...they may not know composition, or focus depth, or complimentary colors, or even keeping horizons level...but what they can do that they never could before is take a quick, thoughtless, handheld snapshot of a child blowing out candles on a cake in an unlit room, and actually get a discernable photo of a child, with clean details and low noise, and a well lit exposure. This is something that only a professional or highly skilled photographer was even capable of in the past, because the camera technology then simply couldn't produce an automatically exposed, full auto snapshot at ISO6400 that was in any way presentable. The skilled photographer knew tricks to getting around the limitations, and therefore knew how to get that shot, but the amateur was completely out of luck. Now, with large-sensor cameras that have intelligent auto modes, access to fairly clean ISO results up to 12800, and multi-stacking modes built in, even a snapshooter with no skill can get that shot exposed.

Where Pea is right again is that the amateur's shot may have blown white balance, a pole growing out of the child's head, the entire photo tilted 30 degrees left, and the child's eyes part-closed. So is it a 'great photo'? Maybe not, unless luck was very much on that amateur's side. But is that photo exposed and captured in a way that simply wasn't possible 20 years ago unless you were a highly skilled photographer with the right tools? Yes.

So, you're both correct in my opinion.

Actually, everything you just said... is what I've been trying to say. I think you said it better, so

Composition is the biggie that cannot ever be replaced by technology. But where obtaining proper exposure used to require great skill, knowledge and equipment by a professional, it is much more within the reach of an amateur with automated equipment now.

 

[photo_chick]

But the claim I am making -- advances in the technology allow amateurs to take high level photographs, that could only be taken by a professional 10 years ago.

I'll agree that technology has made photography more available to more people, and expanded ISO ranges have made it easier to get low light shots. But as far as specific cameras helping people take professional shots... you keep pointing to the camera that took the shots you posted. Just the technical aspects. The focus and exposure leave a lot to be desired, as does the contrast. Now they're great shots for a casual photographer, which is what most people are after, but they don't come anywhere near professional quality. And that's because a camera, no matter how advanced, will never replace a thinking human being with the appropriate knowledge and skill.

Early on I learned in my very first college photography class that 90% of getting the shot is on the photographer. It was reitterated anytime a student used the excuse that they had cheap gear. The gear is just a tool. Good paint brushes won't make you paint like Monet. Having a slab of marble and a chisel won't make you sculpt like Michelangelo. And no camera, no matter how advanced, will make you take professional quality images. But a skilled photographer can take any camera and produce professional quality images. And Michelangelo could probably have created a masterpiece with a Play Doh fun factory.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Justin, I'm not sure you captured what I was trying to say this time around. I was talking about technology.

The vast majority of point and shoot users are going to keep their cameras on Auto. There are some who won't, but those are usually either experienced photographers or those who are attempting to learn more.

Aside from people hanging out here, who are generally either part of the latter group or wish to be, most people looking for a point and shoot will be keeping it on Auto. At least this is what I see from reading and responding to these types of threads, both here and on other parts of the board, and IRL with friends and coworkers, etc.

The OP wishes to get photos that are typically difficult to get with any camera and without at least some knowledge of exposure.

Havoc seems to be saying that this one camera (or other newer cameras of the current generation) can circumvent all the traditional wisdom and get great photos regardless. Which is what I'm disagreeing with.

Further, he or she is espousing this idea to people who are looking to buy a new point and shoot camera. Which to me is because people may be disappointed when they find out those types of shots will still be challenging on Auto.

Now, if people want to venture off of Auto and see what they can do with this camera, perhaps they will have good results.

As you know, I use 4:3 cameras and as evidenced by the graphs posted earlier in this thread, because these have a larger sensor in the camera in question, shouldn't I be able to get great pics in low light and with movement? Guess what? I still generally cannot, unless I work at it. (Which would include using certain lenses, or experimenting with settings, etc.) On its own, it's still difficult. And we've seen that over and over again with new dSLR users, too.

I know you are a Sony shooter and undoubtedly know more about this camera than I do. (I'm talking general principles, though.) If it really is the Holy Grail of cameras and anyone - even users with no experience - can get fantastic photos under challenging conditions, then I'll be the first to acknowledge there are obviously more exceptions to traditional wisdom than I am aware of.

I would still be really interested in seeing havoc's photos from this camera that are the types of photos mentioned in the OP:

I am looking for the camera with the best low light pictures. We are attending MVMCP this year and nighttime parade & fireworks pictures are a must. I also take a lot of pictures indoors. I would like a camera that could get some decent dark ride photos with no flash. My kids are young & never sit still so I would like a camera where I can get action shots!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Early on I learned in my very first college photography class that 90% of getting the shot is on the photographer. It was reitterated anytime a student used the excuse that they had cheap gear.

Come on. That thinking is so.... outdated....

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Your Camera Doesn't Matter

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

It's always better to spend your time and money on learning art and photography, not by spending it on more cameras.

Why is it that with over 60 years of improvements in cameras, lens sharpness and film grain, resolution and dynamic range that no one has been able to equal what Ansel Adams did back in the 1940s?

Ansel didn't even have Photoshop! How did he do it? Most attempts fall short, some are as good but different like Jack Dykinga, but no one is the same.

Why is it that photographers loaded with the most extraordinary gear who use the internet to get the exact GPS coordinates of Jack's or Ansel's photo locations and hike out there with the image in hand to ensure an exact copy (illegal by US copyright laws and common decency), that they get something that might look similar, but lacks all the impact and emotion of the original they thought they copied?

I'm not kidding. A bunch of these turkeys used university astronomers to predict the one time in almost two decades that the conditions would match and had 300 of the clueless converge at just the right spot. They still didn't get the clouds, snow or shadows right. This makes Ansel or any other creative artist cringe. Of course they didn't get anything like what they wanted. Art is a lot more.

Cameras don't take pictures, photographers do. Cameras are just another artist's tool.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I got a chance to look around a bit at the Sony RX100. It certainly does appear to be a nice, capable - probably more capable than most - point and shoot camera. (As it should be for $650!)

I did see reports of blur with low light photos. (One user even calling his "unusable" No doubt, in large part user error.)

But this review sort of summed up what I've been trying to say. Take from it what you will.

Should I Buy This

On performance alone, absolutely. This is a camera that 90% of the population can pull out of a pocket on a whim to fire off a few beautiful shots without much trouble. Still, this is not a camera for everyone.

Let's say you're thinking of buying a DSLR or mirrorless camera, slapping a 50mm lens on it, and shooting whatever you come across during the weekend Buy the RX100 instead. It's smaller, and for your purposes, will yield photos that are just as beautiful with less tinkering.

Or, let's say you're a serious photographer who doesn't want the burden of always carrying around a DSLR. The RX100 is right for you as well. No, you absolutely won't get all the same shots you can pull off with your bigger camera. But you will get some of them (especially in good light). And you won't have five extra pounds strapped on at all times. Plus, this is way better than your smartphone camera (even the good ones). Sure $650 is expensive, but considering all the money you blow on photo gear already, you likely won't consider this a huge extravagance.

Now, this is not quite right if you prefer to keep a camera set to all auto everything to occasionally take a few pics of a kid, a dog, or a summer vacation to Niagara Falls. Using the RX100 is easy enough, and you can get some beautiful shots out of it. But, at $650, you may be spending extra cash on a camera with benefits you won't fully appreciate. Look into the $420 Canon S100 instead.

The other class of folks that might avoid the RX100 is the group looking to get into photography as an actual hobby or profession. You should instead spend that money on an entry-level DSLR—like the Canon Rebel T3i. There's only so much you can gain from a fixed lens attached to a sensor—and this sensor may be big by compact standards, but it's still small on an absolute scale.

This is a great camera to buy. Just make sure you're buying it for the right reasons.

http://gizmodo.com/5931587/sony-rx1...andedly-makes-point+and+shoots-relevant-again

 

[havoc315]

Havoc seems to be saying that this one camera (or other newer cameras of the current generation) can circumvent all the traditional wisdom and get great photos regardless. Which is what I'm disagreeing with.

Where did I ever make such a global extreme statement?

I repeatedly stated that composition is purely in the realm of the art, skill, knowledge and experience of the photographer. I further repeatedly stated that a high quality DSLR on manual in the hands of an expert will always out-perform an amateur with a point and shoot.

But I also said.... That this camera (and others that are surely to come in the future), on mostly automated settings, allow an amateur, or someone with moderate photography knowledge, to obtain exposure quality, that only an expert would have been able to obtain 10-20 years ago.
On fully automated settings, you can get a very good exposure, without even knowing the definition of the word aperture.
Does that mean it will be an amazing photograph? No.
Is more knowledge still helpful? Yes, knowledge never hurts.

But in a direct competition with myself --- With a fair (but not great) working knowledge of ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focal length, dynamic range --- I am getting similar or better results with the point & shoot on automatic, than I was able to get with my dSLR.

I would still be really interested in seeing havoc's photos from this camera that are the types of photos mentioned in the OP:

I'm not going to be near any night time parades or fireworks for a few weeks. So those will have to wait. I can say, and I will post examples, that on automated modes (either strictly automatic, or simply using 1 of the low light pre-settings) the camera is producing amazing low light photographs.
The sushi photograph, while looking like bright day light, was taken indoors, no flash, in dim lighting. I'll try to post more examples tonight or tomorrow. I took a picture of 1 of my children by just the light of their nightlight, it practically looked like daytime.

I'll tell you what --- Give me 3 pictures that you'd like me to take, that I can replicate around my own home -- And we'll see the results. If the results are poor, so be it. If the results shine, so be it. I'll even take each picture twice -- once using a dSLR camera to the best of my ability, and once using the point and shoot. So give me 3 examples you want to see, and I'll try both cameras side by side. I'll post with access to exif data as well. I won't apply any post processing, except what is done automatically in the camera. For the point & shoot, I'll only use the automated and pre-programmed modes. I won't shift to A/S/M-- I'll let the camera handle the exposure.

Might take me until the weekend to get it done, but I think it will make an interesting test.

 

[havoc315]

I'll agree that technology has made photography more available to more people, and expanded ISO ranges have made it easier to get low light shots. But as far as specific cameras helping people take professional shots... you keep pointing to the camera that took the shots you posted. Just the technical aspects. The focus and exposure leave a lot to be desired, as does the contrast. Now they're great shots for a casual photographer, which is what most people are after, but they don't come anywhere near professional quality.

Gee, such a dagger. Just kidding... I know those shots aren't perfect. But those "great shots for a casual photographer" came from practically just randomly shooting off shots. The outdoor shots were taken as I walked my dog, who kept pulling my camera arm while I was taking the shots.

Certainly, if you put the photographs under a microscope, you will know they weren't taken by an expert. But to a casual observer, you see a very very good photograph. If I were to have posted those same photographs, without saying what type of camera was used to take them.... Would you have thought they came from a SLR or a point & shoot?

That's really the question.

 

[zackiedawg]

The vast majority of point and shoot users are going to keep their cameras on Auto. There are some who won't, but those are usually either experienced photographers or those who are attempting to learn more.
The OP wishes to get photos that are typically difficult to get with any camera and without at least some knowledge of exposure.

Havoc seems to be saying that this one camera (or other newer cameras of the current generation) can circumvent all the traditional wisdom and get great photos regardless. Which is what I'm disagreeing with.

Further, he or she is espousing this idea to people who are looking to buy a new point and shoot camera. Which to me is because people may be disappointed when they find out those types of shots will still be challenging on Auto.

No argument on the types of photography that have always been difficult remaining so, and that those willing and able to learn and take over their camera's controls will always be better off. But I guess the big thing is that even 'auto' has changed a lot over the years...so what's Auto now is not the same as 'auto' once was. Nowadays, many camera companies take to calling them 'intelligent auto' or 'advanced auto' modes.

What I think these modes can do is increase the chances of the complete amateur lucking into a decent result in very difficult conditions where they once couldn't luck into it at all. The camera in no way makes up for their lack of skill...but the technology can make up for the shortcomings once prevalent in P&S cameras. For example, look at how many more 'scene' modes cameras have nowadays - sports, birthday cake, beach, landscape, portrait, ski, low light, blah blah blah. Sure, an experienced photographer likely won't ever see them...and the amateur will likely never go into the scene menu and select them. But these new 'intelligent auto' modes can actually recognize the 'scene' based on compositions, shapes, color, exposure, etc, and 'guess' which scene is being snapped, and set the camera to optimal settings for that mode. All with just a shutter button press. The 'good photo' part is still up to the photographer, but now Auto modes can even access the multi-frame stacking modes AUTOMATICALLY - which means, taking noise-free photos at ISO6400 in low light by shooting 6 frames and stacking them in camera with alignment. A great tool for those who knew how to bring it up in their camera, but now you've got intelligent auto modes that access this by themselves.

So in that sense, the chances have gone up that even on P&S cameras, and even smaller sensors, can perform in some scene situations such as low light or action/movement much better than did 'auto' cameras of 6 years ago.

I know of the RX100, though I don't have one and am not looking to buy one. But as you found out from its price, it's not quite the same as other P&S cameras in that it does use a significantly larger sensor - not as big as M4:3, but definitely several times larger than most P&S cameras ever had. So it is more capable than most P&S in low light, but still not quite DSLR territory. It also does have the trick multistack modes which can fire 6 frames and stack, so it will perform unusually well in low light at high ISO. But it isn't going to be a magic camera that automatically takes Sports Illustrated shots of football players crashing the line, and Nat Geo photographs of Cheetahs at full run, or lions eating prey at night by flashlight beam unless the person behind the camera has some skills and experience!

 

[havoc315]

But this review sort of summed up what I've been trying to say. Take from it what you will.

This is what you quoted from the review:
Now, this is not quite right if you prefer to keep a camera set to all auto everything to occasionally take a few pics of a kid, a dog, or a summer vacation to Niagara Falls. Using the RX100 is easy enough, and you can get some beautiful shots out of it. But, at $650, you may be spending extra cash on a camera with benefits you won't fully appreciate. Look into the $420 Canon S100 instead.

The other class of folks that might avoid the RX100 is the group looking to get into photography as an actual hobby or profession. You should instead spend that money on an entry-level DSLR—like the Canon Rebel T3i. There's only so much you can gain from a fixed lens attached to a sensor—and this sensor may be big by compact standards, but it's still small on an absolute scale.

I don't think anything there, is contrary to anything I said. I never suggested that this was a tool to replace a dSLR for a professional or advanced hobbyist.
And yes, it is quite expensive, and not worth the price just to take a couple pictures of your kids and your dog. The review isn't disputing that the RX100 takes superior shots -- just saying that it might not be worth the extra cost for a totally purely casual photographer.

Truthfully, for people who just want quickie pics of their kids, etc -- I'd say stick to your cell phone.
For people who want to be able to take the basics, plus some zoom for scenery and vacations... Get 1 of the point & shoots with great optical zoom.
For people who really want to learn the ins and outs of photography, get a mid-level dSLR, or 1 of the 4/3rds.
For people who want the best possible photographs, and have the expertise to make it happen--- Get the top of the line Nikon DSLRs.
For people who want extremely good photographs in challenging situations, without needing to get a PhD in exposure, ISO, etc, without lugging around a big kit with interchangeable lenses and willing to spend the money, the Sony RX100 is an excellent choice.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I'm not going to be near any night time parades or fireworks for a few weeks. So those will have to wait. I can say, and I will post examples, that on automated modes (either strictly automatic, or simply using 1 of the low light pre-settings) the camera is producing amazing low light photographs.
The sushi photograph, while looking like bright day light, was taken indoors, no flash, in dim lighting. I'll try to post more examples tonight or tomorrow. I took a picture of 1 of my children by just the light of their nightlight, it practically looked like daytime.

I'll tell you what --- Give me 3 pictures that you'd like me to take, that I can replicate around my own home -- And we'll see the results. If the results are poor, so be it. If the results shine, so be it. I'll even take each picture twice -- once using a dSLR camera to the best of my ability, and once using the point and shoot. So give me 3 examples you want to see, and I'll try both cameras side by side. I'll post with access to exif data as well. I won't apply any post processing, except what is done automatically in the camera. For the point & shoot, I'll only use the automated and pre-programmed modes. I won't shift to A/S/M-- I'll let the camera handle the exposure.

Might take me until the weekend to get it done, but I think it will make an interesting test.

I really have no interest in challenging you to that degree. God knows I have enough challenges myself photographically speaking. I just want to make sure it's clear to those looking for a point and shoot camera that have high hopes for it doing everything they want it to do, that this camera may be the exception; that most point and shoots, especially on Auto, will have difficulty. Your point is taken that things are improving today, perhaps more so than ever before. I've made that point myself, just not in regards to a point and shoot camera.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

No argument on the types of photography that have always been difficult remaining so, and that those willing and able to learn and take over their camera's controls will always be better off. But I guess the big thing is that even 'auto' has changed a lot over the years...so what's Auto now is not the same as 'auto' once was. Nowadays, many camera companies take to calling them 'intelligent auto' or 'advanced auto' modes.

What I think these modes can do is increase the chances of the complete amateur lucking into a decent result in very difficult conditions where they once couldn't luck into it at all. The camera in no way makes up for their lack of skill...but the technology can make up for the shortcomings once prevalent in P&S cameras. For example, look at how many more 'scene' modes cameras have nowadays - sports, birthday cake, beach, landscape, portrait, ski, low light, blah blah blah. Sure, an experienced photographer likely won't ever see them...and the amateur will likely never go into the scene menu and select them. But these new 'intelligent auto' modes can actually recognize the 'scene' based on compositions, shapes, color, exposure, etc, and 'guess' which scene is being snapped, and set the camera to optimal settings for that mode. All with just a shutter button press. The 'good photo' part is still up to the photographer, but now Auto modes can even access the multi-frame stacking modes AUTOMATICALLY - which means, taking noise-free photos at ISO6400 in low light by shooting 6 frames and stacking them in camera with alignment. A great tool for those who knew how to bring it up in their camera, but now you've got intelligent auto modes that access this by themselves.

So in that sense, the chances have gone up that even on P&S cameras, and even smaller sensors, can perform in some scene situations such as low light or action/movement much better than did 'auto' cameras of 6 years ago.

I know of the RX100, though I don't have one and am not looking to buy one. But as you found out from its price, it's not quite the same as other P&S cameras in that it does use a significantly larger sensor - not as big as M4:3, but definitely several times larger than most P&S cameras ever had. So it is more capable than most P&S in low light, but still not quite DSLR territory. It also does have the trick multistack modes which can fire 6 frames and stack, so it will perform unusually well in low light at high ISO. But it isn't going to be a magic camera that automatically takes Sports Illustrated shots of football players crashing the line, and Nat Geo photographs of Cheetahs at full run, or lions eating prey at night by flashlight beam unless the person behind the camera has some skills and experience!

Can agree.

 

[photo_chick]

I think this all needs to come back to the OP's original post, which Pea-N-Me went back to a few times. The OP asked about low light.

Low light is some of the toughest shooting in photography. This board is evidence of that with posters frequently asking about how to get non-blurry parade shots and how to get pictures on dark rides. Bottom line, you're not going to get those types of shots consistently with any camera, not even a high end DSLR, on auto. You need a little bit of knowledge to get it done.

Gee, such a dagger. Just kidding... I know those shots aren't perfect. But those "great shots for a casual photographer" came from practically just randomly shooting off shots. The outdoor shots were taken as I walked my dog, who kept pulling my camera arm while I was taking the shots.

Certainly, if you put the photographs under a microscope, you will know they weren't taken by an expert. But to a casual observer, you see a very very good photograph. If I were to have posted those same photographs, without saying what type of camera was used to take them.... Would you have thought they came from a SLR or a point & shoot?

That's really the question.

I didn't mean it as a dagger, but I was trying to be nice about the fact that two are flat out of focus which doesn't take an expert or a microscope to see.

Would I think that they were from a DSLR or a point and shoot.... Ok, here's the thing, if the photographer knows what they're doing I shouldn't be able to tell. Because it's not the camera, it's the photographer that matters.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Your Camera Doesn't Matter

Ahhh - Ken Rockwell.

So this is rather off topic however while Ansel may not have had photoshop he spent a LOT of time in the dark room working on the looks he achieved. Ken is disregarding all that can be done in developing and should not be implying that Ansel Adams look was due only to his photography skills. He was also a very skilled developer.

 

[photo_chick]

Ahhh - Ken Rockwell.

So this is rather off topic however while Ansel may not have had photoshop he spent a LOT of time in the dark room working on the looks he achieved. Ken is disregarding all that can be done in developing and should not be implying that Ansel Adams look was due only to his photography skills. He was also a very skilled developer.

Absolutely agree. Photography is as much about processing and printing as it is what goes on with the camera.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Ahhh - Ken Rockwell.

i know, I know. I like the article, though.

 

[havoc315]

Low light examples

The pictures range from good to totally noisy/unusable. But even noisy/unusable... Still captured immense light out of darkness.

This, with some dim lighting.


DSC00199 by Havoc315, on Flickr

Exif:
Camera Sony DSC-RX100
Exposure 0.077 sec (1/13)
Aperture f/3.2
Focal Length 15.6 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution 350 dpi
Y-Resolution 350 dpi
Software DSC-RX100 v1.00
Date and Time (Modified) 2012:08:09 19:21:46
YCbCr Positioning Co-sited
Exposure Program Program AE
Date and Time (Original) 2012:08:09 19:21:46
Date and Time (Digitized) 2012:08:09 19:21:46
Brightness Value -0.8890625
Max Aperture Value 3.2
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Unknown
Color Space sRGB
Exposure Mode Auto
White Balance Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 1
Focal Length (35mm format) 42 mm
Scene Capture Type Standard
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Lens Info 10.4-37.1mm f/1.8-4.9

This, indoors, no artificial light. Minimal light from windows around sun set. Really should have straightened it, oh well...

DSC00218 by Havoc315, on Flickr

Exif:
Camera Sony DSC-RX100
Exposure 0.167 sec (1/6)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 14.4 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution 350 dpi
Y-Resolution 350 dpi
Software DSC-RX100 v1.00
Date and Time (Modified) 2012:08:09 19:44:09
YCbCr Positioning Co-sited
Exposure Program Portrait
Date and Time (Original) 2012:08:09 19:44:09
Date and Time (Digitized) 2012:08:09 19:44:09
Brightness Value -1.48671875
Max Aperture Value 2.8
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Unknown
Color Space sRGB
Exposure Mode Auto
White Balance Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 1
Focal Length (35mm format) 39 mm
Scene Capture Type Portrait
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Lens Info 10.4-37.1mm f/1.8-4.9

And next, as close as I can come to simulating a Disney dark ride (like taking a picture of your companion in the dark on Tower of Terror). A very dark corner, lit by a cable box light.

DSC00220 by Havoc315, on Flickr


Camera Sony DSC-RX100
Exposure 0.167 sec (1/6)
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 31.8 mm
ISO Speed 25600
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution 350 dpi
Y-Resolution 350 dpi
Software DSC-RX100 v1.00
Date and Time (Modified) 2012:08:09 19:45:41
YCbCr Positioning Co-sited
Exposure Program Not Defined
Date and Time (Original) 2012:08:09 19:45:41
Date and Time (Digitized) 2012:08:09 19:45:41
Brightness Value -5.69375
Max Aperture Value 4.5
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Unknown
Color Space sRGB
Exposure Mode Auto
White Balance Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 1
Focal Length (35mm format) 86 mm
Scene Capture Type Night
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Lens Info 10.4-37.1mm f/1.8-4.9