Need advice on camara

[Sorry Muffin]

I was wondering if any one can advise me on which digital camera to purchase for my upcoming Panama Canal Cruise

 

Price range under $200

Simple Point and Shot

Able to take photos in low light

 

I currently have a Olympus FE-170 that I brought in 2007 and it is beginning to get banged up.

 

Thank you

 

Mary Louise

[Kamloops50]

I was wondering if any one can advise me on which digital camera to purchase for my upcoming Panama Canal Cruise

 

Price range under $200

Simple Point and Shot

Able to take photos in low light

 

I currently have a Olympus FE-170 that I brought in 2007 and it is beginning to get banged up.

 

Thank you

 

Mary Louise

 

I would ask an Camera dealer what is the current replacement by Olympus and any other brand that is similar.

[BlueSkySailing]

Sony takes the BEST low light photo IMHO. They are leap ahead of any other point and shoot camera for low light. Sony uses a Exmor® R CMOS image sensor that takes some get shots. I used a Cyber-shot Digital Camera WX1/B and if you look at my first video Cruise Bash'10 Day1 at 10:30 into it that picture was taken in a very dark club and I used NO FLASH. That sony sensor takes many pictures at once and then combines them into one better photo. Best of luck and I hope you get a camera that works for you. Happy Cruising

[TheOldBear]

You may want to look at one of Fuji travel zoom cameras [looking over on Amazon, the F660EXR is $129]

 

The exr sensor has a low light mode, and that series of cameras have all the 'usual suspects' for features [long zoom range, face recognition, image stabilization, tiny flash] Some of the models have a built in GPS receiver [tags each photo with where it was taken].

[oneputt18]

I agree with Blue Sky Sailing, Sony Cybershot is your best pick at that price point . And I'm a Nikon user.

[awboater]

If you are wanting to stay under $200, you should look at the Nikon Coolpix P310.

 

It has a fast f/1.8 lens that lets in up to 4 times more light than the typical camera. While there are other compact cameras that have fast lenses as well, there are none under $200.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-NIKKOR/dp/B0073HSH08/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369835434&sr=8-1&keywords=p310

 

I have this camera and it is the one I use for my "pocket" camera when I am not using my DSLR or MILC.

[kevrab]

Check out the Pentax WG2 that you can find at Target for under $200. Waterproof, shockproof---shoots very nice photos and video.

[havoc315]

You're going to get a lot of advice of "I use XXX camera and love it."

 

The reality is, true low-light pictures are the most demanding type of photography. It is a major reason why some cameras cost more than others.

When you look at pictures posted by BlueSkySailing, for example -- they were indeed able to capture low light images, but you will notice the picture quality is very grainy and poor. If you are just looking to post small pictures on facebook, these types of low-light pictures may be perfectly adequate.

 

If that's your idea of "low light," then many cameras will do. But for the most part, there is no camera under $200 that will give truly good low light results.

 

I agree with awboater -- Under $200, the Nikon Coolpix 310 is your best bet.

Low light photography is about having a camera with a large sensor, and a fast lens. There really are no large sensors under $200 (In fact, very few P&S cameras have "large" sensors at any price point). Under $200, most also have very slow lenses, but the Nikon P310 is far faster than other cameras in that price range. Though the lens is only fast when zoomed all the way out.

The king of P&S low light photography is the Sony RX100. The lens speed is similar to the P310 -- fast when zoomed out, slower when zoomed in. But it has a very large sensor compared to other P&S cameras. But the price is $650. (And the Sony RX100 is technically a Sony cybershot -- that's a broad range of products of differing quality and price points).

[BlueSkySailing]

When you look at pictures posted by BlueSkySailing, for example -- they were indeed able to capture low light images, but you will notice the picture quality is very grainy and poor.

 

I pointed out that one picture because it had no light sorce. Maybe a dim nightlight and it was able to capture a good photo. Not all the photo in the video were from my camera. Just the ones with my name in together corner. I find google and YouTube to be a very go sorce for comparing different camera pictures to different cameras. Best of luck on finding the right camera.

[zackiedawg]

When used properly, the Sony multistacking low light capability is very adept at providing significantly better high ISO and low light performance than comparable P&S cameras that take only one shot. It does take a tiny bit of practice to use correctly, as one must remember to try to hold steady for a little bit longer than when shooting 1 frame - since the camera is actually taking 6 photos quickly at once, and merging them into 1. But even on their tiny sensor P&S cameras, the multistacking is extremely good for low light needs. In my opinion, it would be the best result in the price range you want.

 

I've got an older Sony P&S which I don't use much anymore, but it was one of the first to add the 'HandHeld Twilight' stacking mode for low light, and despite being 4 years old, it is indeed significantly better than most P&S cameras of today in low light shooting because of the 6-frame stacking. HHT not only uses 6 frames stacked to rebuild detail and knock down noise, but also to allow use of lower ISOs than would be possible in a single frame, by gaining up during the stacking process - so you can get away with ISO400 where another camera might need ISO800 - and the stacking will significantly reduce noise and restore fine detail. Some low light examples with my 4-year-old P&S:

 

 

 

 

Even very high ISOs that P&S cameras cannot shoot without bad loss of details to smearing, are possible with stacking...here's an ISo1250:

 

And a positively nutty ISO3200 - for a tiny 1/2.5" sensor, ISO3200 is just about impossible without a mess of noise and smeared watercolor look with no detail - but with stacking, even fine detail is surprisingly intact:

 

Now, a larger sensor, and a faster lens, will ALWAYS be the best way to deal with low light - I shoot with a large sensor mirrorless camera and a DSLR, and have fast F1.4 lenses - I do extensive low light shooting including a lot of handheld high ISO stuff - but those are not really accessible at a $200 price point. If you want to stick to P&S, stick to pocketable convenient cameras, and need to shoot in low light, the Sony HHT-equipped cameras are likely to be the best choice for the budget mostly due to their stacking technology.

[havoc315]

The multi stacking can indeed be a great feature, and I don't believe it is unique to Sony. The problem is, it is primarily for static subjects. Any real motion makes a good capture very difficult, because as explained, it has to be able to take multiple photographs. The software does an admirable job of compensating for slight movements.

[havoc315]

I pointed out that one picture because it had no light sorce. Maybe a dim nightlight and it was able to capture a good photo. Not all the photo in the video were from my camera. Just the ones with my name in together corner. I find google and YouTube to be a very go sorce for comparing different camera pictures to different cameras. Best of luck on finding the right camera.

 

Please don't take offense, I wasn't meaning to sound critical, just objective. The pictures that do have your name... it is good that the camera was able to capture an image, which does depict the scene. On the plus side, focus is accurate in some of the shots without any visible motion blur. On the downside, unfortunately, there is a great deal of noise (graininess), while the camera obscured detail (notice how one-note the skin in.. where are the wrinkles and pores?) in trying to fix the noise. It's not a criticism of your photography, just simple physics when it comes to modern cameras.

 

Low light photography is extremely difficult, extremely demanding on a camera.

 

DSC01290 by Havoc315, on Flickr

[BlueSkySailing]

Havoc315- no worries. Just did want anybody to think I was saying, look what my camera can do. And it not be from the Sony I was talking about. Truth be told I went with Sony because it shots in 16:9. I never print any pictures so I love the fact that it fill in my screen. In the video you can see pictures with sidebars and some without. I have moved on to the a Sony DSLR. But find myself putting that Cyber Shot in my camera bag just in case :)

[wmjivey]

To throw other another monkey into the mix, I want the best but like you limited budget. I go to B&H photo online. It is a large camera store who happen to have a slightly used section where for that $200 you can get a lot better camera.

 

John

[Treven]

I too would highly recommend B&H, I've purchased my last 4 cameras from them. You might look into Sony's HX100V or their HX200V. They can be found on B&H's "Used" site. I just bought a Sony A330 the first of the month. Seems to be a nice entry level DSLR camera and it was a little more than your budget.