Best Low Light Still Camera?
December 15, 2011 4:47 PM Subscribe
Best low light still camera under $250?
I want a still camera that can take great pictures in a dimly lit bar or restaurant. But I don't want to pay a bunch of money.
I've heard good things about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH22, which is under $200. But am I missing a better camera?
I want a still camera that can take great pictures in a dimly lit bar or restaurant. But I don't want to pay a bunch of money.
I've heard good things about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH22, which is under $200. But am I missing a better camera?
Best answer: If you're looking for a pocket-sized point and shoot camera, the best low-light camera under $250 would almost certainly be a Factory Refurbished Canon S95. The combination of the f/2 lens and a larger-than-average sensor means that it can outshoot the rest of its class in low light conditions.
posted by eschatfische at 5:06 PM on December 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by eschatfische at 5:06 PM on December 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
DxOMark takes measurements of low-light camera performance. You can filter by price, or make a scatterplot of price vs. low light performance and see where the sweet spot is.
posted by Hither at 6:01 PM on December 15, 2011
posted by Hither at 6:01 PM on December 15, 2011
I don't have a specific model recommendation, but if the things you want to photograph are things that stay still, the best camera for your situation almost certainly is one with image stabilization.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 7:20 PM on December 15, 2011
posted by Juffo-Wup at 7:20 PM on December 15, 2011
I have the excellent (sorry, $350) Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 which is great in low light.
Not just because of its fast lens and reasonably large sensor, but because of it's stellar image stabilization that allows me (with sober hands) to take photos at 1/10 or even 1/4 of a second without camera shake.
I've only seen S90 pictures on the back of the camera & not any larger, but it seems to do amazingly well in low light - I assume the S95 is as good if not better.
posted by MesoFilter at 9:19 PM on December 15, 2011
Not just because of its fast lens and reasonably large sensor, but because of it's stellar image stabilization that allows me (with sober hands) to take photos at 1/10 or even 1/4 of a second without camera shake.
I've only seen S90 pictures on the back of the camera & not any larger, but it seems to do amazingly well in low light - I assume the S95 is as good if not better.
posted by MesoFilter at 9:19 PM on December 15, 2011
Low light performance is a combination of:
1) a fast lens (f2.8 or lower)
2) a good-sized sensor
Just about any (non-refurb) camera in your price range is going to have neither of these (including the DMC-FH22). That's why they're in that price range to begin with.
Whether that Lumix has better low-light performance than a similarly priced Canon, I don't know. But the S90, S95, Olympus XZ-1, and LX-5 that Meso suggests are in a whole different class.
posted by coolguymichael at 12:46 PM on December 16, 2011
1) a fast lens (f2.8 or lower)
2) a good-sized sensor
Just about any (non-refurb) camera in your price range is going to have neither of these (including the DMC-FH22). That's why they're in that price range to begin with.
Whether that Lumix has better low-light performance than a similarly priced Canon, I don't know. But the S90, S95, Olympus XZ-1, and LX-5 that Meso suggests are in a whole different class.
posted by coolguymichael at 12:46 PM on December 16, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cwhitfcd at 5:04 PM on December 15, 2011 [3 favorites]