Digital camera with excellent low-light performance under $500?

[erwos]

The wife has been complaining that our really old ultra-compact Exilim doesn't take good low-light pictures (true). We just had our first kid, so this is more unacceptable than ever before. Momma wants to take pictures of the baby, it seems! We need a new camera, and I'm hoping the crowd here can help me.

Criteria for a new camera:
1. Budget is $500 or less.
2. Don't care about interchangeable lenses or not.
3. Low-light performance is the biggest concern. I'd like this to be good as possible for my budget.
4. Movie mode would be good, but is not important.
5. Don't care about the megapixels/resolution, these photos are all going on the web.
6. Don't care about RAW support, I'm not a photoshop guy.
7. Decent zoom would be appreciated.
8. Smaller is better, but I'm willing to entertain bigger if the trade-off is worth it.
9. I would like to have GPS when we do venture outdoors, but it's not absolutely essential.

Your recommendations would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[crashtestdummy]

Look into the Canon S90 or S95. Probably the best low-light for compact cameras. The S95 has slightly better video.

Generally, though, cameras with wider diameter lenses tend to take better low light pictures, as they can gather more light. Also, cameras with less densely-packed CCDs (fewer pixels/mm^2) will have less noise at higher ISO settings. This is not universal, but a good standard with all else being equal.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

S95 without a doubt. Aren't the new cameras coming out soon? August or so? I believe the S95 was announced mid August if you can wait a little more. Even if you wait the S95 will definitely drop in price as the new cameras come out.

You can also look at Panasonic's LX-5, but I appreciate the S95 for being compact. Any bigger and I might as well carry my T1i or 7D

 

[twistedlogic]

From another thread:

*Canon S90/S95
*Canon G11/G12 (has optical viewfinder, but not a high quality one)
*Panasonic LX3/LX5 (electronic and optical viewfinder accessories available)
*Olympus XZ-1 (excellent but pricey electronic viewfinder accessory available)
*Samsung TL500
*Nikon P7000 (has built in viewfinder)

These are the current best compacts for low light.

About #3, for your budget there are better options but they are not as compact. For your use, resizing for web, these options should work much better than your old P & S. The advantages of moving away from compacts are great, but a camera is of no use if you just leave it at home because it doesn't fit in your pocket.

Congrats on your new addition to the family, they sure are a world changer.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

The Canon SD4000 would be a good choice.

$200 from Adorama, free-shipping, Canon Refurb (one year warranty from Adorama), f/2.0 lens. Optimized for low-light. 720p video w/ HDMI connector for your HD TV.

http://www.adorama.com/ICASD4000BKR.html

Save the other $300 toward a Nikon D3100 DSLR (around $580 w/ kit lens).

JR

 

[erwos]

Hmm.

I definitely agree that the S95 and G12 (or their August refreshes) are very strong contenders. I think it's going to come down to talking with the wife about the trade-off between size and features.

Thanks for the help!

 

[alkemyst]

Keep in mind Canon has a habit of releasing new cameras in a lineup that are inferior to the previous generation. It's not always smart to wait.

Anyone have any info on the future S95 update?

 

[jpeyton]

Panasonic GF3; Sony NEX-C3.

 

[iGas]

I own the Canon S95 for 5 months or less, and it served me well on my trip to Costa Rica and Indonesia. The video mode is very good, and is much better with still pictures.

Indonesia, an eye opening experience. [ Update, pictures included ]

 

[iGas]

Hmm.

I definitely agree that the S95 and G12 (or their August refreshes) are very strong contenders. I think it's going to come down to talking with the wife about the trade-off between size and features.

Thanks for the help!

Both have pretty much the same features except that the G12 have a range finder and is much larger than the S95. I picked the S95 over that of the G12, because it is not intimidating for the subject when you point it at them.

 

[yhelothar]

If you really want the best low light camera for under $500 as stated in #3, I'd get...
Pentax K100D with shake reduction on sensor, and a super fast F/1.4 lens.
This is by far your best bet for low light.

http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Pentax-K100D-6-3-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-only-/100147770?LH_ItemCondition=2000|2500&_dmpt=Digital_Cameras&_pcategid=31388&_pcatid=782&_refkw=k100d

http://cgi.ebay.com/Asahi-Pentax-SM...12164463?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item25653b236f


The S95 is also no slouch though, and it's quite a bit smaller and does video, and you don't need to swap lenses for the zoom.
Although the Pentax is 400% more sensitive in low light than the S95.

 

[yhelothar]

Here's a pic from the above combo, with 1/10th exposure, ISO800 but post processed about 3x brighter, F/1.4
This was taken in a dim room after sunset. The high sensitivity of the DSLR with the super fast lens super amplified the lighting in the dim room.

 

[iGas]

If you really want the best low light camera for under $500 as stated in #3, I'd get...
Pentax K100D with shake reduction on sensor, and a super fast F/1.4 lens.
This is by far your best bet for low light.

http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Pentax-K100D-6-3-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-only-/100147770?LH_ItemCondition=2000|2500&_dmpt=Digital_Cameras&_pcategid=31388&_pcatid=782&_refkw=k100d

http://cgi.ebay.com/Asahi-Pentax-SM...12164463?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item25653b236f


The S95 is also no slouch though, and it's quite a bit smaller and does video, and you don't need to swap lenses for the zoom.
Although the Pentax is 400% more sensitive in low light than the S95.

F/1.4 to F/2.0 is only 1 stop different and you have to swap lenses and larger cameras. S95 produce good image at 200 ISO, and decent image at 400 ISO, which isn't that far behind the Pentax.

Consider the differences before you make up your mind.

 

[Sp12]

Of course, the K100D has an 8x larger sensor for narrow DoF and better high-ISO performance. DXomark rates the S95 as capable of 'good' image quality to ISO 150, whereas the K100D goes to ~700, or 4x better.

I would personally go try to get a K-x and SMC Tak 50/1.4 (which is one of my favorite lenses for any camera system ever), but that starts to get expensive and large.

 

[Emulex]

nex-3 - compact enough for wife to carry around all the time.

 

[Munky]

Of course, the K100D has an 8x larger sensor for narrow DoF and better high-ISO performance. DXomark rates the S95 as capable of 'good' image quality to ISO 150, whereas the K100D goes to ~700, or 4x better.

I would personally go try to get a K-x and SMC Tak 50/1.4 (which is one of my favorite lenses for any camera system ever), but that starts to get expensive and large.

I wouldn't recommend a DSLR and a manual focus prime to someone looking for a small all-around camera with decent low light performance. An S95 will serve the OP much better.

 

[super_sinbad]

Another vote for the S95, it's a great little camera.

 

[yhelothar]

I wouldn't recommend a DSLR and a manual focus prime to someone looking for a small all-around camera with decent low light performance. An S95 will serve the OP much better.

It's not really a recommendation as much as it is to provide some perspective just how much more low light power that is possible the squeeze out of that $500.