Ask Engadget: High quality compact digital camera?
This week's Ask Engadget question comes to us courtesy of our own Dave Zatz (yeah, one of the very minor fringe benefits of working here is that you get to ask an Ask Engadget question), who wants some suggestions for a new compact camera:
I understand I should lug around a large camera and learn things about shutter speed and ISO for the best digital pictures… But it ain't going to happen. My small point-and-shoot Dimage Xg has served me well taking outdoor pictures on sunny days, but it struggles indoors and on overcast days, so I'm seeking to draw on the collective wisdom of the Engadget readership. Please point me towards a compact camera that'll produce excellent image quality under a variety of lighting situations. Oh, and without me having to learn anything.
A tall order, but we're sure y'all have some advice for our newest contributor.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joshua Waller @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I would highly recommend the new Fuji FinePix F10 or newer F11 - both excellent low light focusing performance thanks to a very bright focus assist light, very good low light thanks to high ISO settings up to ISO1600, and the camera has good battery life and is very quick as well! The F11 adds manual shutter / aperture controls and a better screen (both have 2.5" screen, but F11 is higher resolution) - but both have very easy to use AUTO modes.
Ross @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
A great, very, very small camera is the Sony T7. It takes great quality photos, and is much easier to carry around than my Nikon D50 :)
Mathew @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Canon SD300 treats me prety darn well.
Ravi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I reccomend the Sony series, they're all ultra small. Sony's coming out with the N1, which has a 3" LCD TouchScreen with no buttons on the back. And has 8.1 Megapixels!
Luke @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
No kidding about the Dimage. I have one, and can not stand it for low light. It cant focus worth crap in any dark situation. Some of the small canon powershot camera's do really well. my Suggestion, go into a Best buy or camera shop and just stick them down your pants and see if it focus's well in low light. You may or may not need to use macro. :)
R4V3 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Personally I like the Kodak EasyShare V550. I tested one out for a couple minutes recently indoors and the results seemed pretty good. Really compact, nice big bright 2.5" LCD, it includes the dock, and looks damn sexy. :D
dcpmark @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
In order of preference, but all 3 are excellent choices:
1)Panasonic DMC-FX9
2)Canon SD550
3)Casio Exlim EX-Z750
The Panasonic is the only one of the three with an optical stabilizer, which helps keep the picture steadier in lower light, and the only one of the three with a movie mode that records in Quicktime.
Einhanderkiller @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Canon SD550? I heard that's pretty good.
Off-Topic:
What's a good headset+microphone that I can get for under $50?
Duffy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I've gone through no less than 4 small cameras in the past 3 years. Right now I'm using a Canon Powershot SD400, and I've been very pleased. It produces high quality images in nearly every setting (outdoors in europe, inside dark frat parties); moreover, it is mostly metal case gives it a really solid feel. I've had this camera for almost 6 months, and it looks like it will last me a lot longer than other cameras I've had.
Za @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
R4V3-The V550, although a slick camera with a decent optical system, is very lacking in terms of battery life. The Sonys and the Canons have been fairly solid in my experience.
Jens @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I would suggest you look into some of the recent Fujifilm cameras such as Z1 or (even better, but not quite as sexy) F10/F11. They can produce great results under low-light conditions, and works like simple point-and-shoot cameras.
jv @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I personally use the Casio EX-S500 now. Image quality is good enough for me; about on par with the Canon SD lineup, perhaps a bit softer. Has a very strong flash, which can either be good or bad; try it out at a local store and you'll see what I mean. Selling point was the MPEG4 recording in a smaller form factor than the V550. 5MP, 3x opt, SD, goes for $320 at your local Costco with a free 256MB card.
Before that, I used a Canon Powershot S110. That camera is built like a tank and took wonderful photos. I'm actually good friends with a couple photographers, was surprised to see that they also used this same camera alongside their other DSLRs. Can do manual shots, if that's of value to you. 2MP/2x/CF. Long discontinued, but you should be able to pick one up from eBay or the like for around $80.
Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Without recommending any particular brand of camera, here are some features to look for that will make a difference in low-light:
- optical image stabilization / vibration reduction
- brighter lenses (look for smaller "f-stop" numbers, if you can find the specs of the lens)
- better high-ISO performance (look at DPReview's tests)
Generally speaking, D-SLRs are going to outperform point-and-shoots on each of these points, particularly if you buy more specialized lenses like the ubiquitous 50mm prime lenses (at f/1.4 or f/1.8, they gather radically more light than much more expensive zoom lenses). If you want to go seriously low-light bonkers, you could combine one of the Konica-Minolta D-SLRs (with vibration reduction built into the body) with one of their reasonably-priced prime lenses, and you'd have a killer candle-light-only camera.
sr @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
All you people going crazy over 8.1 megapixels or whatever should type "megapixel myth" into google and get an education.
Also if low light shooting is an issue, how do you people suppose a camera with a lens as small as that Sony T-7 is going to perform well?
indolene @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
For a casual user, I've always loved my Sony Cybershot DSC-P73. It's 4.1 megapixels, but take fantastic shots for what I need it to do. I'm sure newer Cybershots have better features and resolution, but I also am sure you can find a P73 for dirt cheap right now.
B Blomberg @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Panasonic DMC-FX8 / FX9 are clearly the best alternatives, because of the image stabilizer!
You find more details in my Best Buy guide...
cool dude @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
i love my sony dsc-t1. the picture quality isn't perfect, but it does the trick for me.
B Blomberg @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Sorry the webaddress above got wrong!
essjay @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Personally I find the Pentax Optio SV very hard to beat for a truly compact digicam. Its sexy, small, got the features and really gets some good pictures. Plus you get the amazement everytime the 5x zoom expands out of the body (howdtheydothat!?!?).
Max Fun @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
People will recommend you all sorts, and the truth is that most consumer cameras use sensors from Sony, which are noisy at high ISO settings. What's actually worse than noise is the noise reduction, which could reduce your photo to look like an oil painting more than a photo, and is where the different companies will differ in. Sony is one of the worst culprit for this AFAIK. Canon is much better at this, but the lenses for their consumer SD series is somewhat disappointing compared to their brilliant S series.
Joshua Waller (#1) is right on the money with Fuji's Super CCD sensor that has superb high ISO performance. No other digicam sensor can come close.
If you don't like that, the Panasonic FX9 could be the next best bet. The Matsushita sensor is pretty noisy, and is not helped that Panasonic has a somewhat lax noise reduction program, so even though you'll see noise even in your ISO 80 photos, the photo is ultra shap, helped no doubt by the Leica DC lens. The result, like most digicams, become horrible at ISO 200 and higher, but the image stabilization (the one in the lens, not the software ones in the Casios) will allow you to shoot indoors with very low shutter speeds.
Tim @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Canon SD400, Digital Elph.
a half-generation old, and has everything you need to take -=excellent=- pictures. Controls are easy to learn, and can be handled by the novice, or expertly manipulated by the pro.
small form factor, quick recharging batteries, cheap batteries, common memory type, fast image loading, records video, excellent optics, intuitive controls... i could go on and on.
sheik124 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Kodak EasyShare V550 is a bad choice. I read a review online that claimed it, word for word: "You don't need a graduate degree in math to see that the V550's battery life is worse than any other camera in its class. It's tied for the worst I've ever seen award along with the now defunct Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX7 -- and at least that one had image stabilization!"
Sad though, stunning camera (both the way it looks and the picture quality) ruined by crappy battery life.
Canon SD450 or SD550 get my vote.
James @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Hold off on the new camera. Get a mini tripod, put your DiMAGE on it and spend a couple of months taking pictures in low light. The DiMAGE has an f2.8 lens and will take exposures as long as four seconds. You'll be amazed at the quality and learn about a whole new kind of photography.
Your DiMAGE doesn't have a tripod mount so try the Sima Mini Tripod ($14.99 at Circuit City) -- it comes with a clip that should work for you.
I've taken plenty of good pictures lit with just candles or streetlights.
Margaret Brown @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I recently took a Canon Digital Ixus 750 (SD550), along with my EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) plus two lenses, for a 5-week walking trip in the UK, Orkney and Shetland. I ended up using the Ixus 750 for roughly 60% of the almost 3000 shots I took because it was ideal in bad weather (force 8 gales on many days with driving rain). I could carry the camera in my jacket pocket and whip it out when I wanted to take a picture then wipe off the raindrops and put it away again in less than half the time it took to get my DSLR out - and the 7-megapixel imager produced excellent results.
James @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Hold off on the new camera. Get a mini tripod, put your DiMAGE on it and spend a couple of months taking pictures in low light. The DiMAGE has an f2.8 lens and will take exposures as long as four seconds. You'll be amazed at the quality and learn about a whole new kind of photography.
Your DiMAGE doesn't have a tripod mount so try the Sima Mini Tripod ($14.99 at Circuit City) -- it comes with a clip that should work for you.
I've taken plenty of good pictures lit with just candles or streetlights.
jc @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I have been using a Canon S50 for the past 2 years, and it has been solid. I have used pictures from that camera for everything from 72dpi jpgs used on websites to 180dpi in 32"x20" pictures. I would recomend anything from Canon as good or better than the S50. It also has a great macro mode. (email me if you want some links to actual pictures from this camera)
If I were you, I would start with some questions like: Do I need it to do video/audio? What kind of memory card/format is best for your needs? Are the majority of your shots going to be in low level light areas? Do you need macro settings? Do you need the software that comes with the camera or are you using photoshop?
Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony are all brands that I have experience with, and would recomend... just don't go below 5Mpix.
Ryan Gardner @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I'll echo in more support for the Sony T series. I would recommend a T3 or T33 over the T1 or T7 if you are looking for a camera you can carry in your pocket (and why would you buy a compact camera otherwise?).
I've owned a DSC-U20 a few years ago - it was small enough to carry everywhere I went. The stupid sliding lens cover would often open in my pocket and when I would take it out - I would have a dead battery.
The Sony DSC-T3 I have has worked very well. Video quality is fabulous if you put it on Mpeg-VX mode. I take it everywhere I go - and have the underwater case for when I take it places a camera ordinarily shouldn't go (like the water-and-sand-filled slot canyons of Utah).
Benji T. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Have to chime in on the Fujifilm FinePix F10 (F11 isn't out yet). I wanted a compact camera, but for the longest time it seemed everything out there compromised on low light performance. I prefer taking photos without a flash whenever possible (more natural colors / ambient lighting / etc.), but to get decent low light performance you either need a low f/stop (my old Olympus C2040Z had f/2.1... most compacts are f/2.8 or worse) or high ISO sensitivities (ISO 800 or higher... usually means a DSLR, since most compacts top out at 400, and their ISO 400 shots look horribly grainy/noisy).
The Finepix F10 is a huge departure from the trend of packing more and more megapixels into cameras without really improving image uality... it offers ISO 800 and 1600, and somehow its shots @ 1600 have less grain/noise than most cameras have at 400!
Go out and read the reviews on this camera... they pretty much all agree that the F10's image quality tops many DSLRs!
tracy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
first of all dont buy anything with lithium batteries. NIMH batteries are the way to go on a digitla cammera. that will narrow things down for you.
i have had a minolta f100 and liked it allot, used it for a few years till the lense moter died now i have a fuji e510 (5mp) and its ok but in some ways the 4mp f100 took just as good of shots. i have bought cannon a95 for both my parents and my inlaws and they love them. very well made. i am trying to get a richo gr digital but only a couple have gone up on ebay so i am waiting a bit. look it up its pretty bad ass. other cool new mentions have to go out to the nikon s4 and the richo gx8. i should also go see if there are any reviwes of the fuji e900
jc @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
almost forgot...
http://forum.deviantart.com/galleries/photography/266725/
josh @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
pentax optio series. (im still using the s4 and loving it)
ALF @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Sony DSC-W7 and DSC-P200 are both VERY fast when it comes to shutter lag and recycle time. In fact, I've looked at every P&S digicam to come out in the last couple of years and NONE are as fast as these -- including other Sonys.
That said, for indoor/low-light photography you will probably never find a small/pocketable P&S that satisfies. Maybe someday they'll be able to perfect a 10mmx10mm piece of glass that lets in enough light to achieve /f2.8 or better performance, but it isn't going to by anytime soon.
ALF
Klar @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Here is a site that has great reviews, and an excellent review process, and a great side by side comparison chart as well. I am in the d-SLR market, but its a great site for smaller cameras as well.
http://www.dpreview.com/
Enjoy the new camera.
jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Canon SD500.
jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I just got a Canon SD500 and, for a point and shoot compact camera, i couldn't be happier. There are issues, but they're pretty miniscule.
jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
(continued) 3x optical zoom, 2 inch LCD, good macro focusing, some manual controls, and 7.1mp. for the street-price, it's hard to beat. $350 got me the camera, new in a box, and a 512meg card.
Antonio Rosario @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Canon Powershot SD 450 or the SD 550.
The 450 is really small and fits in a shirt pocket. The lens is great and the pix are superb. The 550 is slightly bigger but is a 7 megapix camera. Frankly, I don't see the need for more than 5 MP with pocket cameras. The 450 is not much larger than my Razr. Simple and small and great.
Andy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
If you are talking about indoor shots and are not looking for a 'long-zoom', the choice comes down to autofocus speed. If you are taking pictures of kids/dogs etc. and don't want to miss a shot, the Sony cameras - P200 shines - are hard to beat. I've got the P100 (previous model) and have used both. Great little pocket cameras.
Brian Theodore @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
As much as I'd love to recommend it, avoid the Canon SD500/550 at all cost. Size/zoom/mp/reputation is all great, but this camera totally struggles under anything resembling low-light conditions. And, with very little manual controls to play with, it's not uncommon to be left with a lot of blurry photos. I've regretted getting this camera almost from day one.
nezromatron @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
SD400 here.. Excellent for taking anywhere, about the size of most cell phones.. Pretty decent video mode as well, very quick startup and picture write. Check Slickdeals, I got it from dell for about 265. SD450 is pretty much the same thing with a .5" larger screen. (2 vs 2.5)
Rory Bigger @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
2 choices come to mind immediately for indoor shooting, and both have been mentioned before. The Panasonic FX8/FX9, mainly because of the stabilizer, but they also have some of the best optics on small cameras as well. Also, the Fuji F10/F11 for the genuinely useful Hi-ISO settings. I own and Elph, and have made some good shots with it as well as subjected tit to the kind of torture that would break most cameras, but I for your situation I think it is a pretty bad choice. The only Elph I would consider is the 7mp SD550, not so much for the 7MP, but that it has a better flash than the rest of the line.
JRF @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
A primary factor in low light performance is sesor size, or more precicely, sensor photo-size density. That is why a digital SLR can shoot at 800 ISO with about the same noise level as a point-n-shoot shooting at 100 ISO. With a bigger photo site, more photons hit it in a given amount of time so the analog to digital conversion is less suceptible to error.
The sensor size dictates lens design. For a constant field of view, the smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length. So a camera with a tiny little lens with a tiny little focal length is going to have a tiny little sensor and that will be a liability for low light performance.
Of course, there are other variables but this is probably the dominant one for low light performance.
ItsAllVerbatim @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Ok, I'm looking for:
*SD slot
*Megapixels - irrelevant, above 1MP is fine
*Small size (no bigger than a HTC Wizard length/height/width)
What cameras fit this profile? Hope this applies to the OP too. But seriously. Help me out.
Devlop @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Well, I don't have an answer for ya.
I would also like to find such a versatile and compact camera, but I've looked and can't.
I've also kept my eyes open for a compact camera that allows for fully manual focus (and not just that pseudo area select manual crap)/exposure/balance/etc but can't really find one that meets the bill there either! (Fully manual cameras allow you to handle any reasonable lighting condition - albiet you will need to learn how to use it.)
I know they have the technology and ability to make one, and I believe it would result in little difference to camera production costs... but alas we humans seem unable to produce a good compact camera!
Atleast in my opinion.
John B @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Not sure if this is as small as you are looking for, but I recently got a Canon power shot S60 and am quite pleased with it. It takes good quality shots, plenty of resolution. Nice macro mode for those close up shots. Plus, if you want to do some manual settings there are quite a few choices. I still have not fiddled with all of them.
Eric @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
I spent a few weeks researching cameras about 4 years ago and bought Canon S100 Elph. That camera is TOUGH and took great shots. I liked it so much that I bought a S410 on sale this week, and let my Kids use the 100. The Elphs are bulletproof and take great pictures.
Eric Schreiber @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Cannons have the best optics in the industry, I use a sd300 compact, which takes amazing pictures everywhere I go and fits in my pocket(about the size of an ipod)
they have updated the models a little since I bought mine, the best being the SD450 or SD550
both are easy to use and take sd cards, which are the most common consumer memory format
miky @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
The Sony Cybershot V1 all the way baby! I've had it for almost two years now and never had a problem.
Glen Campbell @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
To sum up most of the previous comments: "I've got the and I think is really great. will do what you want." The fact is, if you want to take good pictures in low light, you need one or more of these four things: (1) fast lenses, (2) good flashes, with good flash control, (3) high ISO rating (1600+), and (4) image stabilization. The fact is, very, VERY few compact cameras have any of these. It's extremely rare to find a compact digital camera with a lens faster than f4; if you want an optical zoom, they're often MUCH slower than that. Likewise, most compact camera flashes have a guide number around 6; this means that you're NEVER going to get a good picture in low light of someone/something more than 15 feet away. The tripod someone above suggested is your best option, unless you need to take pictures of moving things, in which case you need the faster lens/higher ISO/image stabilization route.
spsmyk @ Dec 19th 2005 12:20AM
Don't get the Sony T1 - been using one for a year and can't wait to replace it...shutter lag is horrific, flash recycle time is forever...
Don't know if the newer T's improved these areas, but I am tired of pics where everyone's eyes are closed...