# Point and Shoot--good low light pics?



## kcp (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi all,
I have the DSLR already (Canon 20D), but I am looking for an inexpensive (less than $200) point and shoot camera that is good with low light pictures. I bought a Casio Z75 and it has been nothing but a disappointment. Grainy shots in NORMAL light....so you can imagine what the low light shots look like.

And yes....I did a search on this site...and did not get the answer to my question. 

Oh, and yes--I checked out dpreview, but nothing was rated over a 7, and low light photos weren't discussed.

Thanks!


----------



## Garbz (Jan 19, 2008)

Well something you should know. Low light performance requires big sensors for low noise, big sensors cost oodles to make and find their way into expensive cameras.

You will NOT get a camera that is good with low-light for that money unless you are prepared to load film into it.


----------



## kcp (Jan 19, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Well something you should know. Low light performance requires big sensors for low noise, big sensors cost oodles to make and find their way into expensive cameras.
> 
> You will NOT get a camera that is good with low-light for that money unless you are prepared to load film into it.


There HAS to be something out there......  my cousin had an HP she paid $99 for and it took great photos at a bonfire last summer, while my Casio photos were awful.  Unfortunately, she bought it years ago and I can't find the model anywhere.

I'm not looking for professional type quality....just something that doesn't look like it's taken through a bunch of sand.

Doesn't ANYONE know of anything?


----------



## jstuedle (Jan 19, 2008)

As the P&S cameras pack more MP in such a small sensor, compremises are made. Often a 2 MP oldie will do better in low light than the latest and greatest 8-10 MP P&S with much smaller pixels. It's just the physics involved. Technology is attempting to catch up, but much smaller pixels are just not up to the job of the older big pixel (read lower resolution) cameras.


----------



## kcp (Jan 19, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> As the P&S cameras pack more MP in such a small sensor, compremises are made. Often a 2 MP oldie will do better in low light than the latest and greatest 8-10 MP P&S with much smaller pixels. It's just the physics involved. Technology is attempting to catch up, but much smaller pixels are just not up to the job of the older big pixel (read lower resolution) cameras.


Understood.  My cousin's camera was only a 4 MP and it did great. I'm not looking for big MP, just something that will capture decent (read-non grainy) low light photos.


Sigh.....guess I'm gonna have to shell out money to get what I want.  How disappointing.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 22, 2008)

A bon fire is not low light (well depending on the fire). You'd be surprised how much light something like this actually gives off. Combine with a flash to raise some ambient and you could take a good shot with any camera.


----------



## kcp (Jan 23, 2008)

Garbz said:


> A bon fire is not low light (well depending on the fire). You'd be surprised how much light something like this actually gives off. Combine with a flash to raise some ambient and you could take a good shot with any camera.


But not the Casio Z75.   Like I said, my cousin's old camera did great....mine did not.


----------



## myopia (Jan 29, 2008)

if you are looking for a a p&s camera to take non-grainy shots in low light, then i think you are on the wrong track. the best solution is to find the p&s camera that takes low light pictures with a grain that looks like film (which is tolerable and sometimes very very nice).  ricoh gr-d is what i recommend. also- dont read too much into dpreview.com, for it is a review of cameras for tech geeks, not for photographers...


----------



## kcp (Jan 29, 2008)

myopia said:


> if you are looking for a a p&s camera to take non-grainy shots in low light, then i think you are on the wrong track. the best solution is to find the p&s camera that takes low light pictures with a grain that looks like film (which is tolerable and sometimes very very nice). ricoh gr-d is what i recommend. also- dont read too much into dpreview.com, for it is a review of cameras for tech geeks, not for photographers...


So do you have any suggestions on brands?


----------



## ashadiow (Jan 29, 2008)

Ugh. Casio and image quality shouldn't even be in the ame sentence. Everything is going to be grainy. They are basically great looking pocket cams that are no better than what people have in their blackberry's. With that said there are a few ultra compacts that take great photos.

Starting with something you are familiar with: CANON. Really, did you think you could go elsewhere? The SD1000 is the budget one and takes just great pictures for what it is. If you are looking for something nicer, look at the SD950IS. Expensive, but very nice.

Sony: The little sony's take great pictures. My buddy has a DSC-T10 and it is awesome. about the size of a credit card and is a hit at party's. Takes good snap shots and he seems to like it. The new one on the block is the DSC-T200 and T70. Both I assume carry the same image quality. Those are the onse I can vouch for, other than that, you would be on your own.

For Under $200 new, the SD1000 can't be beat. Period.


----------



## kcp (Jan 29, 2008)

ashadiow said:


> Ugh. Casio and image quality shouldn't even be in the ame sentence.


  So I found out!  

Thank you for the SD100O suggestion.  I will check that out!  :thumbup:


----------



## mrodgers (Jan 29, 2008)

ashadiow said:


> Sony: The little sony's take great pictures......


You can not just state a brand name and assume that all of said brand takes great pictures.  Your Sony may take great pictures, but the Sony I bought before returning it did horrible in not so low light, let alone low light.  I took 175 shots with it before returning it.  Not one of them was any good inside the house with many lights on and the flash.  Every one of them looked worse than a cell phone photo.

Every brand has low quality budget cameras that take low quality pictures.


----------



## ashadiow (Jan 30, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> You can not just state a brand name and assume that all of said brand takes great pictures. Your Sony may take great pictures, but the Sony I bought before returning it did horrible in not so low light, let alone low light. I took 175 shots with it before returning it. Not one of them was any good inside the house with many lights on and the flash. Every one of them looked worse than a cell phone photo.
> 
> Every brand has low quality budget cameras that take low quality pictures.


You fail at reading.  I simply highlighted it the way I did with Canon.  I then go on to state the exact model number I have used in the past.  I can't speak for others, but the model's I have used have above average image quality.  You must have missed the part where I say "*Those are the onse I can vouch for, other than that, you would be on your own.*" 

Anyways, good luck with your decision.

Edit:  I know this isn't a low light shot, but it was taken with an SD1000.


----------



## kidchill (Jan 31, 2008)

I just bought a Sony point n shoot for a friend of mine for x-mas, pics are coming out great and you can adjust ISO sensitivity auto/manual.  I can't remember the exact model I think it was WDC or something like that, but anyhow, with tax it was just under $200, there was another model that closely resembled it, it was like $50 cheaper.  I don't know how much that helps, but it's the sony cam that comes in all the different colors.  Check it out!


----------

