Thanks to this forum I bought the DMC-TZ4 years ago.. but what for indoors?

[Obsoleet]

Anything in that price range that is the de facto standard of indoor photos? I love my DMC-TZ4 for outdoor photos and traveling, I took it with me to 8 or 9 different European countries and it was great. What is the "Panasonic Lumix" of indoor photos for a point and shoot?

Personally I'm a fan of small point and shoots that are decent quality like the Lumix.. I'm no camera expert tho and have to rely on you guys with the amazing $4000 lenses who know your stuff.

Anything in the price range of the Lumix I have that is as great as this thing but indoors? I'm going to continue to use the Lumix indoors but need to buy my parents a new camera, they use a HP that is trash..

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 or (new) LX5
Canon PowerShot S90 or (new) S95

Those are the best two (well, 4) point-and-shoots under $500 for low-light shooting. The LX3 and S90 should be around $380 and $330, respectively. The LX5 and S95 come in at $500 and $400, respectively (they are *just* released though, so I would expect prices to settle a bit once the initial frenzy is over). So they are more expensive than your TZ4 was. I don't think any other, cheaper point-and-shoots would be noticeably better than your TZ4 in low-light situations.

 

[Obsoleet]

What would I get my parents if I wanted them to have the best camera for around ~250? I think I paid $200 for my camera in '08 from Amazon/J&R. Maybe there's a newer version of my camera that's good?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The DMC-ZS5 looks to be pretty close in features, form factor, and price. The Canon SX200 is similar as well. Your TZ4 is what's known as a "superzoom" or "ultrazoom" meaning it has a lens with a very high zoom ratio, 10x. It is also a "compact" in size. There will always be trade-offs in such cameras. A standard zoom compact (something like a 3x or 4x zoom ratio) will likely have a somewhat "faster" lens, i.e. it lets in more light. For example, your TZ4 has an f/3.3 aperture at its widest setting. Many other zooms start at f/2.8 and some even at f/2.0. f/2.8 lets in roughly 33% more light than f/3.3 and thus is better in low light. An f/2.0 lens (like the LX3 and S90 have) lets in more than twice as much light. (In all of these cameras, the maximum aperture varies depending on how zoomed-in it is. Your TZ4 is f/3.3 at the wide end, but f/4.9 at the long end. That means when you're all the way zoomed in, the lens is letting in roughly half as much light as when you're zoomed all the way out.)

So one thing I would think about is whether the super/ultra zoom is a necessity. Also, how compact is necessary? There are tons of cameras out there for $250; picking the "best" isn't really possible without narrowing down some requirements. If there are no specific requirements other than size then I would go for a $200 Canon SD1400IS. But there might be benefits to going for something larger (small buttons might be hard to press for older hands, etc.). Another option would be the Panasonic DMC-FH3 at $140. There's really very little difference IMO.

My general rule for buying point-and-shoots at this time is to buy a Canon or Panasonic (nobody else matters) and make sure it has Image Stabilization (Canon: IS or Panasonic: OIS). In the <$250 range there are lots of choices out there. Browse Panasonic's site here:

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/index.html

Personally, if I were buying one right now, I would go with the Panasonic "Tough" DMC-TS2 because of its waterproof/shockproof/dustproof capabilities. I've already got a couple of DSLR's for when I need good photo quality, and I've got a Canon SD780IS point-and-shoot that is smaller than my RAZR phone. I would like to have a ruggedized P&S for snorkeling, poolside, etc. The similar DMC-TS10 is in your $250 price range and has similar features and design.

 

[Obsoleet]

That's my only real problem with my camera, it doesn't seem very good indoors. It blurs. You have me a lot to consider and think about. What tends to do the best indoors, just a Canon or Panasonic with lower zoom? I bought the TZ4 with intentions to use it in Paris and across Europe which it did very well IMO.. I simply use the automatic setting and enjoy myself. The 10X zoom was fun from the top of the Eiffel Tower. I agree though, 10x might be a little much for me.. and I don't think my parents need 10x. It's going to be mostly for family functions.

 

[davestar]

slash's first response contains all the P&S models that you should be considering if you want decent low-light performance... and even though the LX3/5 and S90/95 have features suited for low-light photography (f2.0 lenses, large-ish sensors), the user needs at least some photographic knowledge to take advantage of those features. if you/your parents don't want to bother with anything but the auto setting, these cameras will likely still disappoint.

 

[tempuraki]

canon sd4000 has f/2 lens, and is probably less complicated than s90. can also do 720p. price has come down quite a bit since launch, you can probably find a new one for $280ish.

 

[Obsoleet]

We are auto setting people. Not that I don't appreciate cameras or photography, we are just lazy in this area of our lives.

 

[996GT2]

We are auto setting people. Not that I don't appreciate cameras or photography, we are just lazy in this area of our lives.

No point and shoot camera is really "good" in low-light/indoor use, but the Panasonic LX3/LX5 and Canon S90/S95 are the ones that are the best at it. They have lots of manual modes and such, but you can always leave them in the auto modes and shoot.

 

[hackmole]

There is a point and shoot camera that has been getting quite a lot of buzz lately but it isn't that well known. I went out and took a look at it and was so amazed that I immediately bought it. Keep in mind that I also looked carefully at the Panasonic Lumix ZS7 and other Lumix models.

The camera I bought was the Casio FH100 and I bought it for the following reasons.

1. 24mm wide angle. Few cameras have that wide a shot.

2. 10 x optical zoom to 240mm and much higher at lower megapixels without deterioration (which is fine for computer/web). Other cameras have more zoom but super high zoom becomes too unstable to hold anyway. The Casio has more than enough zoom. I have done telephoto in digital up to 50 times using 2 megapixels and the resulting image was quite superb. At VGA mode you can go up to 159 times zoom but beyond about 130 the images are not that good. I have examples of outstanding high zooms around 50 zoom if you are interested. For some reason, the digital zoom deterioration is a lot less than other cameras I've seen and they speak about that in their manual.

3. This is the most compact and lightest of the cameras for what it has to offer - 8 ounces with battery.

There are smaller cameras and if weight is an issue then get a camera that is 4 ounces or less that you won't even notice in your pocket but those cameras won't give you any more than the basics and very little zoom.

4. High Speed Video 112 to 1000 frames per second for shooting fast moving sporting events, baseball, football, tennis, your own golf swing or fast moving nature shots - humming birds, butterflys, bees, dogs, cats or firework explosions... whatever. You can do regular video, then press the record button again to switch to high speed and then press the button again to go back to normal speed. Tell me what Panasonic Lumix has that. In fact, no other compact camera offers this feature. It's incredible and nice to have that option because it can come in handy.

5. High Definition video of course, as well as 640 by 480.

6. Fast burst shooting up to 40 frames per second. You won't miss the shot you have been looking for.

7. Backlit CMOS, I think they call it, for better shots in low light which is a big complaint for about 98&#37; of all compact/subcompact digital cams including the Panasonic Lumix models. The FH100 is one of the few that's decent in low light. (Recently, I took some shots in some pretty dark rooms and stupidly forgot to turn on the flash and they still came out suprisingly well with no blurring whatsoever unless I moved too much which I did for about 2 shots. I then went back several days later and took the shots with the flash on and the photos came out superb. I didn't even have the flash set to maximum intensity.

8. The FH100 supports the RAW+ format and when you do shoot in the RAW+ format, it will at the same time shoot a photo in the 10 megapixel jpeg format. So that way, you don't have to go back and shoot a separate photo in the jpeg format to compare. That's why it is called the RAW+ format (raw plus jpeg). The lack of the RAW format is a big complaint among serious photographers, Panasonic Lumix users and most other point and shoot camera users. Canon only has one compact model that does RAW. With the RAW uncompressed format, you should be able to get higher quality photos though it does take about 15 seconds to write it to the disk because the files are so large.

9. It has a special Youtube format option so videos come out crystal clear when you upload them to Youtube. I don't think that any other digital camera has that option. I still don't know exactly what it does to the video in this format.

10. Total manual override controls if you know what you are doing.

11. You get 520 shots out of one battery charge (official CIPA-rated) compared to the average compact which gets between 300 and 340. Some people have said that they are getting a lot more than that.

Basically, the combination of 24mm wide angle, slightly better compactibility and lower weight, better low light shots, more than enough zoom and quite good digital zooming before any deterioration is noticed, longer battery life plus the added bonus of the novelty of high speed photography for sports, nature shots or even fireworks explosions, makes this camera an outstanding buy at the current level of technology for today's cameras.

 

[Obsoleet]

THANK YOU for posting about that Casio. I'm looking at this for my parents for Christmas. It'll prob be a S90, FH100, LX3 or ZR1. The price on the Casio looks appealing. I'd like to stay in the ~250 range.

Any other opinions are welcome for point and shoots. Seriously need to get my parents off their crappy HP camera from Walmart. My dad goes and buys the cheapest crap he finds appealing on the shelf. Anything in the $250 range has to be leaps and bounds beyond what they're using.

edit- reading some reviews of all these cameras on Amazon and one guy suggested the DMC-ZS7 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00395WIXA/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk over the Casio so that's definitely getting added to my list to look into.

 

[996GT2]

I'd take that Casio off your list if indoor/low light performance is important to you in a small camera. Even though it has a back-lighted CMOS sensor, the combination of a small (1/2.3") sensor and slow-aperture lens (f/3.2-5.7) make the Casio pretty bad for low-light use. In contrast, the LX5 has a larger sensor (1/1.6") and faster lens (f/2.0-3.3).

Larger sensor=less noise at high ISO
Faster aperture lens=better ability to gather light, so you can use a lower ISO to get the same shot.

THANK YOU for posting about that Casio. I'm looking at this for my parents for Christmas. It'll prob be a S90, FH100, LX3 or ZR1. The price on the Casio looks appealing. I'd like to stay in the ~250 range.

Any other opinions are welcome for point and shoots. Seriously need to get my parents off their crappy HP camera from Walmart. My dad goes and buys the cheapest crap he finds appealing on the shelf. Anything in the $250 range has to be leaps and bounds beyond what they're using.

edit- reading some reviews of all these cameras on Amazon and one guy suggested the DMC-ZS7 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...cm_cr_asin_lnk over the Casio so that's definitely getting added to my list to look into.

 

[hackmole]

996GT2,

It's funny that you say that since every professional photography reviewer that I have seen on the net, and they are quite critical and nitpicking by the way, speaks about how great this camera is in low light.
For example:

CNET
The Casio Exilim EX-FH100's four main draws over other cameras are it's low-light capability, its high speed burst photography, it's slow motion video, and it's loooong battery life.

digitalcameraHQ

it's the sensor that really shines on this camera. It's a back-lit CMOS sensor, which means it can handle low-light extremely well, and it's also got a shift mechanism to counteract blur from shaking the camera, such as when holding it in low light. The result of those two technologies produces a camera that, in all my tests, never had to push itself beyond 400 ISO (though it can go up to 3200 on demand), resulting in crisp images largely free of grain or blur, even when shooting one-handed at dusk. Very impressive.

ecoustics.com
Highly sensitive CMOS sensor
Casio continues the quest for ever-higher picture quality, the foundation of every camera's performance. This model incorporates a back-illuminated CMOS sensor that boasts nearly twice the usual sensitivity. This lets users take beautiful photos outside as well as high-quality, low-noise photos indoors or in other dim lighting. And of course, the model also comes with CMOS-shift image stabilization.

Digital Photography Magazine
Because it uses a backlit CMOS sensor, it does incredibly well in low-light, capturing sharp images even in the dimly lit temperate rain forests of northern Washington State.

And I, myself, last week, shot photos in a very dark Victorian Gothic house room which came out really great. I don't even like being in that house because of it's low light stained glass windows, stained light covers and dark brown painted walls. It hurts my eyes it's so dark in there but that's what the owner drug addicts like because of the light sensitivity of their eyes.

 

[996GT2]

996GT2,

It's funny that you say that since every professional photography reviewer that I have seen on the net, and they are quite critical and nitpicking by the way, speaks about how great this camera is in low light.
For example:

...snipped...

Well, it may be good compared to your garden-variety point and shoot (which usually has a 1/2.3" non backlit CCD), but it's definitely not better than an S95 or LX5 by any means. Both the S95 and LX5 have considerably larger 1/1.6" sensors, which means that each individual photosite has more area to capture photons of light.

Here's just a quick blurb I pulled from photographyblog:

Unfortunately the image quality doesn't quite match the extensive feature list, with the EX-FH100 suffering from less than stellar images in low-light due to obvious noise and softening of fine detail at the relatively slow speed of ISO 200, which gets progressively worse as you move up the range. Which is a shame, as apart from the disappointing 7cm macro mode, image quality is otherwise very good.

Now, the sensor is only part of the equation. The Canon S95 and Panasonic LX5 both have lenses that start at f/2.0 at the wide end of their zoom. The FH100 is f/3.2 at the wide end. That's 1.3 stops slower, which means that the Casio will need to use ISO 1000 for a situation where the S95 and LX5 can use ISO 400 to get the same exposure! If the Casio had a faster lens, it may be a serious contender, but its lens really lets it down for low-light work compared to the better point and shoot cameras out there.

I know all 3 cameras have image stabilization, but image stabilization can't freeze moving objects in front of the camera! When your subject is moving, you need a fast shutter speed, and the only ways to get that are 1) high ISO or 2) fast aperture lens. The FH100 does not compare to the S95 or LX5 in either of these respects.

 

[davestar]

just chiming in here to back up my first post and fellow Baltimorean 996GT2.

a backlit CMOS sensor may perform marginally better than its non-backlit counterpart of the same size, but no one would deny that a larger sensor (backlit or not) will easily outperform both. and that's not to mention that much faster lens on the S90.

anyway, see for yourself with Imaging Resource's "Comparometer": http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

select the S90 on the left frame and the FH100 on the right. click the "New Indoor (INB) 1600" and/or "New Indoor (INB)3200" for each camera and the click the thumbnail images to see them in full resolution. check out in particular the darker areas of the picture. though a lower-light scene would differentiate the perfomance of the cameras more effectively, it's still obvious that the S90 far outperforms the FH100 at high-ISO thanks in part to the larger sensor. However, since these pics were taken at the same f-number, this comparison doesn't showoff the improvement in low-light photography that the S90's lens offers.

 

[Ken90630]

I've been out of the photography soup, so to speak, for awhile but 2-3 years ago Fuji made some digicams that were particularly good in low light situations (it was their selling point). I haven't kept up though, so I don't know if that's still the case. You might cruise over to DPReview's site and read a couple reviews of some current Fuji models.

 

[hackmole]

First of all, the S90 is backward technology by at least 3 years. It only has 3.8 x zoom compared to 10 x zoom for the FH100. The S90 has no HD video. That's completely unacceptable for today's cameras. The S90 does not have high speed video for faster sports or nature shots like the FH100. The S90 only gets 220 photos out of one battery charge compared to the FH100's 520. Basically 2.5 times as much battery as the S90. The S90 plane and simple is backward technology

Regarding your test results, I also saw test results for ISO tests that Dpreview conducted found at the following address:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page18.asp

In all the three photo comparisons, the Casio FH100 was clearly better than the top Canon model, the sx210 IS, or Panasonic's DMC ZS5 and other cameras. Some of them like the 3rd photo comparison showed a striking difference in the FH100's better quality.

It's not saying that any of these cameras should ever shoot at such high ISO settings but the setting shows the difference in quality of the cameras when they are extended to their limits which indicates that a marginal difference in the regular mode gets very much magnified in the high ISO mode strongly favoring the Casio FH100.

 

[996GT2]

*facepalm*

Read my response. Nobody is saying that your FH100 is bad. It's just not that good in low light. From your post it seems like you don't know much about photography so I would suggest you read up on aperture, sensor size, etc. 10X zoom has nothin to do with "backwards" technology. Many professional SLR lenses (like my Sigma 50mm for example) are fixed and do not zoom. Does that make it worthless? No!

First of all, the S90 is backward technology by at least 3 years. It only has 3.8 x zoom compared to 10 x zoom for the FH100. The S90 has no HD video. That's completely unacceptable for today's cameras. The S90 does not have high speed video for faster sports or nature shots like the FH100. The S90 only gets 220 photos out of one battery charge compared to the FH100's 520. Basically 2.5 times as much battery as the S90. The S90 plane and simple is backward technology

Regarding your test results, I also saw test results for ISO tests that Dpreview conducted found at the following address:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/page18.asp

In all the three photo comparisons, the Casio FH100 was clearly better than the top Canon model, the sx210 IS, or Panasonic's DMC ZS5 and other cameras. Some of them like the 3rd photo comparison showed a striking difference in the FH100's better quality.

It's not saying that any of these cameras should ever shoot at such high ISO settings but the setting shows the difference in quality of the cameras when they are extended to their limits which indicates that a marginal difference in the regular mode gets very much magnified in the high ISO mode strongly favoring the Casio FH100.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

First of all, the S90 is backward technology by at least 3 years. It only has 3.8 x zoom compared to 10 x zoom for the FH100.

A long zoom is a nice thing to have, but a camera is a bundle of trade-offs, and a long zoom usually means a slow lens, lower image quality, and a bigger/heavier body. You see this even in DSLR's. A zoom lens with a high ratio such as 18-250mm is simply going to have lower image quality than a set of zooms with smaller ratios, e.g. one lens from 18-55mm and another from 55-200mm. The best zoom lenses from all the major makers have ratios only in the 3x to 4x range: 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 14-24mm, 16-35mm, 17-55mm. Yes, they also offer 18-200mm, 28-300mm, etc. but these are always slower over their zoom range, have greater distortion (especially at the wide end), and are less sharp.

TANSTAAFL applies to lenses too!

I am not going to claim that the FH100 is a poor camera... indeed, it looks to be a good compromise for a lot of people, and the high speed video and high FPS stills are pretty much unparalleled in a consumer-level camera. (In fact, I would go so far as to say that it appears to be a niche camera in that it excels at high-speed video and stills, but it is merely competent as a normal, everyday camera.) But the fact remains: a lens that's f/3.2 at its fastest, only lets about 1/3rd the light of a lens that's f/2.0 at its fastest (like the S90's lens). So, setting the cameras' lenses both to wide open, and the ISO at the same setting, the S90 would have a shutter speed over twice as fast as the FH100's. Faster shutter speed creates sharper photos, especially in low light. Or maybe the shutter speed doesn't need to be that fast, so you can lower the ISO from 1600 to 800, or from 800 to 400 (in any P&S, this will make a very noticeable difference in noise -- it makes a noticeable difference even on my EOS 5D, which has a sensor about 36 times larger than the sensor in the FH100).

In any case, my point is that there are trade-offs to be made, and it's silly to focus on zoom ratio to the exclusion of other factors in a general-purpose camera. There is a market for ultrazooms, and there is a market for normal zooms. There is a reason why the normal-zoom cameras have not gone away, even in the high end of the market.

 

[hackmole]

I know enough about aperture and sensor size to know that it is way overrated especially when you can easily work around it with a program like Photoshop. Basically, I don't care what camera you shoot with, I will take any photo you give me and rework it to my tastes in Photoshop. Therefore, so long as lighting from a camera is reasonable, very larger aperture becomes just about irrelevant.

Now of course there are those purists who don't want to do anything more than just take a photo and be done with it, but in my personal opinion, I don't think you can do that any more. If you are doing things for the web, you absolutely need to resize images which means Photoshop. You need to resize photos for prints because you will most like be taking photos at higher megapixels then you need. Post processing is a necessity and since you are then using a program and the computer anyway, you might as well use it for adjusting the lighting which can easily be enhanced without degradation of the photo in Photoshop or other programs. So that's why I think aperture, after a certain point, is way overblown.

 

[Obsoleet]

Interesting debate you guys have there, but I still cant decide which camera to get my parents. I prefer one that can take video like my TZ4, preferably higher quality than mine. 10X zoom might be a little excessive. I don't think I even used it on trips to Europe. I think I zoomed all the way out on the top of the Eiffel Tower with it once to a soccer game. Didn't find many other uses for that kind of zoom.

The LX5 and S95 are pretty expensive. I don't know if I want to spend that much. Panasonic has WAY too many models for me to wade through, because I don't understand what I'm looking for. When I got my TZ for my travels, I just popped onto this forum and asked for the best travel camera that's point and shoot.

I don't mind the Panasonic, the fact it uses a proprietary cable to connect to the PC is a stupid decision on their part though. I wouldn't mind getting away from that aspect.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

hackmole: Thanks for opening my eyes. I will sell all my expensive DSLR's and lenses, and just start using my cell phone's camera for all photos. Who cares about initial image quality when I can always rework it to my tastes in Photoshop?

Obsoleet: Nobody is really going to be able to tell you for sure. Cost, size/weight, image quality, versatility, low-light, zoom factor. All of these factors and more will go into the trade-off. It is almost like buying a car, there are so many options and so many models that look more or less the same. But sooner or later you have to just pick one. Chances are, you will be happy with it.

Personally, I have been very happy with a Canon SD780IS, which is tiny, has a 3x zoom lens with image stabilization, and does 720p video. It is not great for low light, but I have my DSLR for that, and the flash on the 780 is good enough for most snapshot situations. I also have good enough knowledge/technique that I can eke out a good image most of the time, even under less than ideal conditions. Pulling up the images and enlarging them, they look quite smeary compared with my DSLR's images, but for web sized or 4x6 prints they look just fine.

 

[hackmole]

obsoleet and others,

The latest Consumer Reports magazine wrote that the Casio FH100 had the second highest rating in point and shoot advanced cameras and that the camera shake was better than most SLRs and SLR-likes.

The only camera rated better in the advanced camera category was the Canon PowerShot GII, however, the GII is twice as heavy, shoots only 28-140mm, doesn't have quite as high a score in the video quality, has less battery life, doesn't have high speed video and costs $150 to $200 more. So I have to wonder a little bit about their rating system. It does say though that the PowerShot GII has as good a quality or better than any SLR camera so the time is coming slashbinslashbash when you will sell all your expensive DSLR's and lenses. You'll probably be a lot happier too not having to carry around those bulky pounds of cameras and lenses not to mention being able to take photos in places where you wouldn't be able to get to because of the extra bulk and weight.

At least they put the FH100 in the "ADVANCED CAMERA" category. That means something in itself.

Anyway, you might want to take a look at the article and ratings in the link below. When the page comes up with a camera photo, make sure to scroll down the article by dragging the scroll bar at the right side border to read it or you can save the story to your hard drive. You can increase the text size percentage too so it is easier to read.

Oops, I've been getting feedback that the original link didn't work so I uploaded it elsewhere and edited this post for the correction.

Click on this link and SCROLL to the BOTTOM and click on where it says:

Digital Camera Ratings.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/fct7xy

Don't click on anything else on that page other than that or you will get some stupid ads.

 

[996GT2]

It does say though that the PowerShot GII has as good a quality or better than any SLR camera so the time is coming slashbinslashbash when you will sell all your expensive DSLR's and lenses.

At least they put the FH100 in the "ADVANCED CAMERA" category. That means something in itself.

Please, just stop the trolling now.

 

[Obsoleet]

Actually I'm glad for the post from Consumer Reports. Last year I bought a tv that IMO seemed to be an excellent value for price and quality (my 50" Samsung plasma) and a month or 3 later, they came out and said it was the best buy for 50" HDTV. Obviously i was in complete agreement, because I research my purchases like a madman.