Compared to the Nikon P520 and the Sony FZ200 which might be best for low light image stabilization,portraits and pics of our dogs - thanks!
1684348
I can't answer for Nikon but if it's anything like the Canon DSLR, the Sony is far superior in low light shooting. The quality of the still shots are excellent and the high definition video is spectacular. I hope this helps.
1684349
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_p520_review/image_quality/I havent tried the Nikon but this Sony is pretty good in low light video , no zoom noise ,its pretty quiet . But I believe for big portraits, full fledge photographers wont recomment this Sony model but I wont be blowing up pictures with this camera.The Fz200 is a panasonic model has a shutter speed of 15 seconds while Nikon is 8 seconds, so I would say Nikon is better but Sony has 4 seconds shutter speed , so for night photgraphy Sony is the best in the group .
1684350
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_coolpix_p520_review/image_quality/ I havent tried the Nikon but this Sony is pretty good in low light video , no zoom noise ,its pretty quiet . But I believe for big portraits, full fledge photographers wont recomment this Sony model but I wont be blowing up pictures with this camera. The Fz200 is a panasonic model has a shutter speed of 15 seconds while Nikon is 8 seconds, so I would say Nikon is better but Sony has 4 seconds shutter speed , so for night photgraphy Sony is the best in the group .
490818
I am also looking at these two cameras. My needs are a good low light performance as well as action sport shots. I had purchased the Panasonic FZ8 but have returned it because the inside low light pictures were very noisy and grainy. It took great outside pictures and was responsibly fast. I'm currently wanting to try the Sony but don't like the idea of having to buy a memory stick for it, I have a few sd cards that the Canon takes.
77698
It is difficult to say, and the question is pretty subjective given that we don't know exactly how much light is available and what level of image quality you are looking for. Like most cameras in its class, this camera has a relatively small image sensor, so shooting in low light situations is not its strong suit. But the camera does ok, and will likely be better than shooting with a cell phone camera or similar. It won't be nearly as good as shooting with something in a DSLR class, however, which will have an image sensor several times the size of this one.
1879028
Not quite sure of your question on "better", but I will try to answer. This is not a high end DSLR, but it holds its own in action shooting with excellent clarity. As for limited/low light shooting, I was amazed in what it does without the flash. I have been using a Sony compact disc camera with optional with a fish eye lens for several years taking low light pictures . I most often had to use some form of lighting to get a good shot. The fish eye lens interfered with the flash causing major shadowing. The SZ+31, under the same limited light, gives excellent wide angle pictures WITHOUT a flash and little need to touch-up. We also have a mid-level Canon DSLR that was supposed to replace the Sony. The SZ-31 actually has more features with less bulk and is very user friendly. We are using the SZ-31 infinitely more than the other two. Here is the best clue: My wife does not take well to ANY gadget---until we bought the SZ-31. She loves this thing and so do I.
1746412
Late to respond, but my previous camera was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ18, a point and shoot camera which I thought took outstanding pictures...until I bought the DMC-FZ150. Holy cow! What a jump in performance that even an unsavvy enthusiast like myself can actually use. I am, however, shocked by the price increase. I had to buy it online because it wasn't available locally but with the reviews and my past experience with Panasonic, I took a deep breath and did it, purchasing it through Amazon for $439 in early April 2012. I consider it top echelon of the "amateur" use cameras.
712774
I have looked at Snapshot's review and D5200 wins here: Low Noise at High ISO 1,284 | Great image quality 84.0 (vs 81.0 D3200) | Full HD 1080p @ 60fps | Great color depth 24.2 bits (vs 24.1 bits) $497 vs $319 (D3200 @24.1MP high true resolution & Wide dynamic range @13.2EV)LyubakaVideo is on YouTube and Instagram
844346
In addition to several other professional reviews available online in favor of the Panasonic ZS3/TZ7, one of the most reputable online sources for photography (i.e., The Luminous Landscape) has published its findings on April 28, 2009, comparing Panasonics ZS3, Canon SX200, and Fuji F200EXR, and I found it very informative:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket.shtml
470693
Thanks for the links, R.G.! Esp. the comparison. I've been holding off for THE p+s camera (to replace my Canon S410) and I think TZ5 is it.
423142
Thanks Janet, I kinda knew that, but was surprised that you would be using p&s.; I would love nothing more than to stick with a p&s;,but the shutter lag (for shooting puppies/dogs in motion)(low-key professionally) is KILLING me. Is it true, there is no p&s; with a truly shorter shutter lag?p.s. not to mention a big ol' black SLR scares heck outta puppies!
1078011
The G5 does surprisingly well in low light! I am a bit amazed at the pictures I can take with street lights as the only illumination. There is sensor noise; somewhat more than with my Nikon D600, about the same as my Nikon D7000. Noise elimination post-processing cleans it up fairly nicely. On the other hand, consider that most Micro 4/3 lenses are fairly slow. So unless you get one of the fast lenses, you'll be using the "low-light" capabilities more than you would if you had a camera with an fast lens. The lens based anti-shake system works OK, but it's not as effective as some costlier systems, so a tripod is a must for "available dark" shooting.
1786750
I'm between the same two models, and was also considering the Canon SX30IS. I recommend you read the in-depth reviews on www.imaging-resource.com. Unfortunately, despite all the great features of the Panasonic FZ100 and the Leica lens, it's image quality doesn't compare to the Nikon. Compare the noise and detail of the sample images in both of these reviews. It's too bad, I was about to get the FZ100 until I saw how poor the image detail was up close. But that website ended up giving the Nikon P500 a high recomendation, while they could not in good conscience give the FZ100 any sort of recomendation at all.
827135
it's an exceptional improvement, and it wold be good for landscapes and small venues. If you want something even better then go with nikon 17-55 f2.8 however that's around 1.4k dollars
1590026
Barry/Richard,I'm still having a heck of a time trying to get a decent snapshot of my dog indoors with typical family room lighting ( not dark but not bright either ) with the S8000. If he so much as wiggles his tail, all is a blur. With higher ISOs I don't expect much sharpness. Faster shutter leads to very dark pics. What am I missing? Do I have to use flash - a tripod is out since he won't sit still that long.Thanks guys,Tony
1121866
I'm going into private investigation and am looking mainly at low-light and zoom features. Googling "best low light digital cameras" always seems to lead to Fuji brand cameras. My only concern w/ Fuji is that the Xd cards are sometimes an issue w/ file size. Hope this helps. Fuji seems to be the low light king, but I am wondering if this sony dsc-h2 can do as well?
650801
I didn't like the image quality of either of them. I think the sensor is too small. The s120 is better than the s110 with faster focusing and a better sensor. I may consider spending a little more for the Sony rx100 with a bigger sensor (price dropped).
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.
220161
Thanks very much. By the way, we have a Canon G12. I feel it too distorting both colours and proportions and of course slow between 2 clicks. What would you suggest to improve on "fidelity" and speed: A. Canon S100 over Nikon P7100 (and Olympus XZ-1?)?B. Olympus E-PM1 over Nikon J1? C. or Nikon V1 solves everything? PS. I have no Nikon lenses so I am not stuck on Nikon. Thanks