I have the M50 now for a few years, how is the image quality compared to more expensive and newer models especially in low light
2051762
I can not say as I don't have the models you mentioned to compare. I can say I was unhappy with SONY video cameras in the same price range.
1028752
Its actually not too bad. I use mine all the time in low light situations, but with any camera the lower the light your filming in it will start to look grainy. This camera comes with a light you can attach, so all you need to do is turn that on.
1813610
Yes the image quality is much better. This lens is over all sharper and has a much better build quality. I own and use this lens on my Canon 70D.
660620
The difference for me was the group focus feature, it seemed to lock in focus quicker and track subjects better. Low light is just awesome I have always hesitated cranking up the ISO too high because of the noise potential. It is simply amazing how you can take clean shots in low light situations like bars, parties, sports arenas. If most of your shooting involve low light venues you will see a difference. Wether this is enough to drive an upgrade is up to you. Regarding general picture quality I can't say there is a significant difference other than low light situation I mentioned. I own a d800 as well and use it when picture quality is absolutely critical. These are the 2 cameras in my bag and handles every situation I am faced with. If pic quality is what you seek you can grab a used d800 for under 2k. You will not be disappointed. Just my opinion.
591607
I had a 20mm MkI on a GX1 side by side. I also have the EM10 with 17mm. I can't comment on the image quality. I sold my old Panny stuff and jumped on Oly camp without doing much. The 20mm is actually slower to focus compare to the 17mm on both cameras.
1507232
Like the S90, it's decent at wide angle. At 24mm, it supports a maximum aperture of f/1.8 (so a little better). Plus, the newer processor will help reduce noise at higher ISO settings (again, a little better).For low light photography, you might look at a camera with a larger sensor like the Sony RX100 or RX100 II. I'd also look at the Panasonic LX7 if you need decent low light performance throughout the zoom range.
518570
It seems as good or better than other ultra-compacts I've had. In low light it does indeed look grainy at times, but interestingly enough, the picture doesn't, it is often much better. Of course, your results may vary, but I think it's pretty good for this price point.
1690184
I had this camera for almost a year. I was happy with he shots but the low light quality is terrible. I had a lens with capability of f1.8. In low light the pictures still turned out bad if the iso was above 400. I sold this camera and bought a canon 40D. But if you still haven't decided (which you probably already have since this was from May) I would recommend Nikon's update camera, the d3100.
923250
I have the 45-175 and I'm pretty happy with it. It is very quick to focus and has power zoom; zooming can be slowed down, but not as much I would like. I like to contrast of the images it produces. And it is quiet enough.
1357472
I can't compare image quality to the 28-70, but I am happy with the quality. I would really miss the 24mm if I had the 28-70. It is solid and relatively heavy, but is does not have VR which makes it feel fairly compact.
1420825
It's great. I use it for weddings which happen always at night time in my country. there is a bit of noise but way better than it's rivals in the market in my opinion. Don't compare it to a DSLR because that's an unjustified comparison.
1674903
I have been more than pleased with the image quality of the LF1. I have not seen the images you are evaluating. Check out Gordon Liam & Camera Labs for his review and serious sample photos.
1608676
thank u for this info, but i have a question which compact camera will be good quality especially in the low light conditions?maybe the sony H20, the fuji F70, panasonic fz38, canon sx20
103006
It's not bad for the money, but if u want something mil spec it's no where close. But if you don't have the money to get gen 1+ or higher monocular it's worth it. Make sure you get a good IR light or filter on ur rig it'll make a world of difference.
131464
The reviews I have seen (the in-depth for real ones, not the ones on sales sites) talk about the P80's lens slowness while trying to take pictures. I'm sure it's not as slow as the old (3-4 years ago) digital cameras but evidently it is a glaring issue in certain light situations. I am a Nikon shooter for over 30 years and have D200 DSLR now which I am very happy with, but I bought a FZ28K for a trip to Paris and am so far very happy with it. The iA mode is really pretty amazing - great exposure in almost all situations.
1058502
It has an APS-C size sensor, so if you are comparing it to a small point-and-shoot, it is much, much better at low light. The ISO can be cranked up pretty high, though I try not to use anything over 6400. With the kit lens at f/3.5 (or f/5.6 full tele), low light performance is decent, though a faster lens like the SMCP-DA 50mm f/1.8 would increase the performance even more.
2137224
I haven't used this camera in a while, but from what I remembered it handled it self pretty well in low light conditions. It depends a lot on the light that is available. I am assuming you're looking to rent the camera because of it's size, but if size is not an issue, there are probably better DSLR's out there that handle low light conditions better in terms of speed and ISO performance. But, for its size the Ricoh does a really good job in low light conditions.