It seems that Sony pictures are more vibrant and Canon ones are more dull....but not always though.Do any of them have image stabilization for taking pictures in low light situations (ex.concerts?) I tried taking a lot of pictures at a U2 concert recently and hardly any turned out. Most of them were quite blurry.

Only the most expensive cameras have image stabilization.

Only the really big digital SLR's with very sensitive CCDs can take good low light pictures.

Have you looked at the reviews at http://www.dpreview.com ?

I'm also wishing for a small digicam that takes good low-light pictures.

Welcome to the world of compact low-cost digitals. They simply do not do low light very well since they extend the aperture time resulting in a blurry shots if you're not using a tripod.

I just went on a tour around Europe and everyone had trouble at night with their digital cameras. I don't think anyone had anything super duper though.

I don't know how the high end DSLRs etc go though I'm sure they are much better since they generally have bigger CCDs

Quite simply none of the current non-DSLR digital cameras will give you decent low light performance in those conditions. Even if you get one with image stablization and a small aperture (which allows more light in allowing you to use a faster shutter speed) that allows you to get non-blurred photos only gets you part way there.

The other problem is noise. To get non-blurred shots in those conditions, even with a wide aperture and IS, you will need to use the 400 ISO sensitivty setting. The 400 ISO setting on non-DSLR cameras are all univerally noisy, meaning the shot isn't really usable for much anyway.

If you want to take decent shots in conditions like this you really do need a DSLR, which are getting cheaper and cheaper (and smaller and lighter) by the month....

I think that you misunderstood what Tony meant when he said "really big digital SLR's". I think he was refering to the fact that all DSLRs are big compared to their compact cousins.

Yeah, to me, anything bigger than an Ixus is "Really big".

heh funny you referring to the Ixus, when in your part of the word they call it Elph

Anyway I thought that my Sony DSC-V1 takes decent night shots, but then I compared them to my friends DSLR :P

okay...how about for outdoor daylight photos? The Sony's seem crisper and more vivid, or maybe it is just me. Maybe it is the Carl Zeiss lens....what do you think?

Probably just the in-camera "saturation" and "sharpness" settings. Boosting those by default gives nice out-of-camera 4"x6" prints, but makes for lousy 11"x14" enlargements. Canon normally plays it more conservatively than the non-photographer brands in that regard.

Cheers

Mmm.. this is not a train, but it was moving in near darkness. Canon 20D at ISO3200. The 350XT "only" goes up to ISO1600, but with a not-so-slow-lens it could easily take similar shots.

I'd think a moving dark train would be fun to photograph. Pity we don't have so many of those on this side of the pond.

Cheers

Probably not by the time you have three lenses for the Canon though...

Well, this was done with a 10D, but he cheated and used bulbs
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=78109

without bulbs I suspect I will get nothing so stunning.

In terms of low light, you can always do a long exposure with a pocket camera, if it will let you disable the flash and you can hold it fast with a tripod. You may have additional noise, but hopefully not any worse than you'd expect during the day.

I had to do a little digging around to find some good example photos. First, here's an available-light photo taken in a lava tube in Hawaii with my old Canon G3. This was a one second "raw" exposure (ISO 50), pushed two stops using Adobe Camera Raw without any more than the usual noise reduction settings:



Here's a 1:1 pixel detail blow up:



Certainly, there's some noise but nothing that renders the image unusable. Now, for contrast, let's look at a what a D-SLR (my Nikon D70) can pull off. Here's a shot of the Vancouver (B.C.) skyline at night. Six seconds long, f/8, ISO200, with the camera braced against a balcony.



Here's the 1:1 pixel detail:



Certainly there's much lower noise and greater detail, although I had to work it over with Photoshop to get the right exposures for different parts of the image. I'd say the moral of story, for whatever it's worth, is that you can get good pictures with anything, but you can always do better with fancier gear (if and only if you can be bothered to haul it around with you).

To be fair, if weight is a premium, one could get by with an all-in-one zoom, such as the Sigma 18-125mm zoom (385g, $289 at B&H) , Sigma 18-200mm zoom (405g, $399), or Tamron 18-200mm zoom (425g, $399). The Canon 350D / Digital Rebel XT body is another 485g, without battery. At the low end, that's 870g (without battery) of carry weight. For contrast, the Canon Powershot Pro1 is 540g (also without battery). and the Nikon Coolpix 8800 is 600g (without battery). Canon's little 18-55mm zoom is a svelt 190g, getting the official kit package down almost to the same carrying weight as the integrated cameras.

Given the choice, I'd go for the D-SLR. It's less clear whether you want Canon's little zoom. For the weight, it's relatively hard to beat. If you're willing to spend more money, and you really want image stabilization, I'd get the 17-85mm zoom that mlord has (475g, $599). B&H puts this in a kit with the 350D for $1400.

Okay, as long as we're talking about cheap Canon gear, how about cheap Nikon gear? The new D50 will (soon) be available as a kit with the 18-55 and 55-200 (both with internal motors, unlike the cheap Canon) for $1150 (540g for the body only, not sure about the lenses). And, they're practically giving away the older D70 kit with the 18-70 lens ($1059, minus $100 rebate, 595g body only) that has been working great for me for the past year.

Also intriguing, particularly if travel weight matters, is the Olympus E-Volt E-300. That kit with a 14-45 and a 40-150mm zoom, comparable to the Nikon D50 kit, costs only $900. The price is less, but I'd probably go for either Canon or Nikon, mostly for the larger selection of lenses and accessories.

In short, it's hard to say whether Canon or Nikon is leading at the very low end of the D-SLR spectrum, but I'd take either one over one of the "prosumer" integrated cameras, and I'd likewise take Canon or Nikon over Olympus (or other vendors), unless price is the dominating factor.

All Canon EOS lenses have "internal motors". But the better ones have "ring USM" type motors (silent, fast, and power-effiicient). The N.A. version of the 350XT kit lens does NOT have a "ring USM" type, but it does have an "internal motor". EDIT: Actually, *two* internal motors.. one for focus, and the other for the automatic aperature

Cheers

I didn't realize Canon did that. That would help them shave weight from the body. Nikon is split. The older AF lenses are driven by a motor in the body. The newer AF lenses have the cool ring motors. (And, apparently, the Nikon pro bodies have bigger, stronger motors, so they'll focus the older AF lenses faster than the consumer bodies.) Canon only uses a ring motor on the 18-55mm zoom that they sell in Asia, but not on the US/Europe version. Nikon's new 18-55mm uses a ring motor, as does their 18-70mm zoom that was the kit lens for the D70.

Back to the (almost) original topic of this thread, DPReview has a review up of the Fuji F10, a 6MP compact camera that seems to legitimately be able to shoot at ISO1600. The review makes it out ot be quite a winning camera, even at normal speeds.

Another cool thing about the "ring USM" motors is the full time manual focus. Once the camera gets a focus lock, I can grab the focus ring on the camera and refocus and shoot the picture. This requires half an inch of movement from the zoom ring, and as soon as I let the shutter release button up all the way it's back to autofucusing. (I have no idea if Nikon has an equivalent tech, I assume they call it something else)

I havn't used any of the recent prosumer all in ones recently, but the ones I have tried out have all had some of the worst ergonomics and ease of use around. You need two hands to control all the inputs a camera needs while holding it steady. Withh my D60, I never navigate menus when I'd like to be shooting something, everything has a hard button and wheel that adjusts it. The SLR form factor just works so much better than a camera with external dimensions dictated by how well it'll fit in a jacket or shirt pocket.

Matthew

Nikon has the same full-time auto/manual behavior on all its pricey ring-motor lenses ("silent wave motor" - SWM - in Nikon lingo), including the D70's 18-70mm kit lens. From what I've read, the two new low-price zooms (18-55 and 55-200) have the fancy ring motors but apparently do not have the nifty auto/manual behavior. You have to explicitly switch from auto to manual mode by flipping a switch. I guess it's a cost-cutting thing.

I have to agree, I really miss the focusing screen of the old nikkormat I was shooting before. The D60 is much more dificult to focus manually, and I usualy let the autofocus handle it.

It seems that the DSC-F828 really has the layout of a slr. I guess the main difference is the "one hand on the shutter, one on the zoom ring" vs "index finger doing both shutter and the zoom bumper switch -- all held a foot in front of your face so you can watch the LCD get washed out in the sun".

Matthew