Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Camera recommendation < $1000

shinji said:
Any more thoughts on this? Still undecided.

It's now really between a high-end point and shoot and a dSLR.

I would like to take indoor pictures in normal room lighting without the flash, though...can an S95 or G12 really not handle that?
Click to expand...

S95 takes excellent low light pictures, without the flash.....as well as normal lighting and has "IS" too.
 
I bought the Canon G12 and the battery is charging now.

I figure if I get more into photography, I'll buy a dSLR later and extra lenses for different situations.
 
ledzeppelin said:
S95 takes excellent low light pictures, without the flash.....as well as normal lighting and has "IS" too.
Click to expand...

Dunno about that. I went to see a friend's band play in a pub last night, and he handed me his S95, asking if I would take photos of the band for him. After all I had heard about the S95, I figured it would have a somewhat decent chance at getting some nice photos in the low light of the pub. Granted, I'm accustomed to using a DSLR, but the results were just as awful as I would expect a point-a-shoot camera to produce.

First, I put it in M mode and changed every setting available to maximize my results, but it was quite dark in there, and just to get 1/60s at f/2, I had to use ISO 3200 (and I had to stay at the widest focal length to keep it at f/2, of course). The noise was absolutely atrocious at that sensitivity, so I figured I'd slow down to 1/30s to get ISO 1600 and then use the flash and drag the shutter. Maybe that would produce something useful, I thought. So I pop up its little built-in flash and go at it, from a distance of about five feet from the band members who were at the front. Out comes this tiny little 'puff' of light (for lack of a better term) that had no effect whatsoever at that distance. That little flash was just too tiny to do anything useful. Then I check to see how the noise looks at ISO 1600, and it was almost indistinguishable from ISO 3200: horrible. Each photo was just a mass of grungy stipple.

Then I looked at what my videographer friend was getting out of his HD camera, and it was worlds apart from the S95. I suppose the HD camera might have a slighter bigger sensor in it, and it surely costs a whole lot more than an S95, but he was getting some incredibly clean video in that light.

Anyway, I took some photos for him, but they won't be very useful for anything more than a small web photo. In short, I would not say that the S95 "takes excellent low light pictures." It's just not the tool for that kind of job.
 
My S90 is not happy at high ISO levels. I don't like to go past 800 with it, and it's marginal at that ISO. I shoot in raw to give myself more options to deal with noise in post.
 
Phrasikleia said:
Dunno about that. I went to see a friend's band play in a pub last night, and he handed me his S95, asking if I would take photos of the band for him. After all I had heard about the S95, I figured it would have a somewhat decent chance at getting some nice photos in the low light of the pub. Granted, I'm accustomed to using a DSLR, but the results were just as awful as I would expect a point-a-shoot camera to produce.

First, I put it in M mode and changed every setting available to maximize my results, but it was quite dark in there, and just to get 1/60s at f/2, I had to use ISO 3200 (and I had to stay at the widest focal length to keep it at f/2, of course). The noise was absolutely atrocious at that sensitivity, so I figured I'd slow down to 1/30s to get ISO 1600 and then use the flash and drag the shutter. Maybe that would produce something useful, I thought. So I pop up its little built-in flash and go at it, from a distance of about five feet from the band members who were at the front. Out comes this tiny little 'puff' of light (for lack of a better term) that had no effect whatsoever at that distance. That little flash was just too tiny to do anything useful. Then I check to see how the noise looks at ISO 1600, and it was almost indistinguishable from ISO 3200: horrible. Each photo was just a mass of grungy stipple.

Then I looked at what my videographer friend was getting out of his HD camera, and it was worlds apart from the S95. I suppose the HD camera might have a slighter bigger sensor in it, and it surely costs a whole lot more than an S95, but he was getting some incredibly clean video in that light.

Anyway, I took some photos for him, but they won't be very useful for anything more than a small web photo. In short, I would not say that the S95 "takes excellent low light pictures." It's just not the tool for that kind of job.
Click to expand...
Dunno whats up with this for sure but it seems to me that when BH niece had baby and room was dark that I got some real good shots of him without flash so as not to disturb....I will try and find them to see if I am remembering something wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. Ha.
 
I should probably have clarified at some point that I never make actual prints of these.

Just 640x480'ish jpegs for flickr and to look at on my computer.

Also, to take my new dating profile pics.

I read this study on okcupid http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/ that said Leica point and shoot users were rated as more physically attractive than all dslr users, though that was only part of my interest in the X1...and incidentally, how I heard about micro 4/3's in the first place, which are the most attractive of all.
 
ledzeppelin said:
Dunno whats up with this for sure but it seems to me that when BH niece had baby and room was dark that I got some real good shots of him without flash so as not to disturb....I will try and find them to see if I am remembering something wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. Ha.
Click to expand...
removed goof.
 
Last edited:
compuwar said:
That paste does not do what you think it does.

Paul
Click to expand...
Sorry, Paul....as you can see I am still learning my way around so please be patient with me while I learn and make mistakes doing it.
I thought I could copy and paste a photo here like on my PC but not. So I am going away to be a less thorn in the threads side....<grins>
 
In short said:
OK, replace "pretty good" for "excellent" and better than most point and shoot....since I can't get my example to resize. Any help on that procedure?
Click to expand...
 
Why not love for the Pentax K-r? You can get it with a 35 2.4 for well under $1000. Plus, the ISO performance is amazing. I take easily usable images at 6400 for my work with minimal noise reduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back