I have a friend wanting a small camera that can handle low light without flash. Not sure of budget but will update when I hear. If anyone has recommendations, I'd greatly appreciate them!
I'm assuming by "small camera" we're talking Point & Shoot variety/size? The smaller the camera sensor the greater the challenge for it to perform well at high ISO. Personally I like the Sony RX100 (I own the Mark 2, the Mark 3 is available now). It has one of the largest sensors for it's body size class and performs quite decently at high ISO. Since us photographers care way more about ISO noise than the general public, I would characterize the RX100 "photographers" ISO ceiling around 1000, but the general public would probably find ISO 1600 or even a bit higher acceptable on it.
But if your budget doesn't stretch to an RX100, Sony compact cameras with the Exmor CMOS sensors a great for the price. Real bargains on cameras such as the DSC-HX20V on eBay for example.
Have you looked at Panasonic Lumix GM1? It is as small as a compact camera but has a much larger Four Thirds size sensor and both Panasonic and Olympus have fast prime lenses for the Micro Four Thirds lens mount.
@ajcann@helstor I've given my friend this link to see what comes in. Thanks all! She is apparently going on an trip that has limitations on cameras (and she does travel a good bit, so compact would be good I assume). Here is the latest adventure that has the photo limitations listed, but all of that could be handled with about any camera I suppose as long as flash and photo "clicks" were minimized like my photo can do. http://rowe.audubon.org/
This is interesting:
"Please use your view finder instead of your LCD screen when taking pictures. The light from the LCD screen illuminates the person taking the picture and increases the chances for flushing cranes near the blinds."
That rules out so many small cameras these days that simply do not offer a viewfinder. My last small camera purchase was fraught by the lack of viewfinders, the use of which I deemed to be essential I completely fail to see how a camera can be held steady at arms' length whilst viewing the back screen - plus which of course, my arms are no longer long enough for my eyesight :-) I ended up buying a Nikon P510 bridge camera, which has an electronic viewfinder and does handle low light quite well with it's good ISO range It has long been superseded but I expect a model with similar features is available. Of course many folk would not call it a small camera so it may not fit the bill.
I very much second @bigmac115 !!!! I have a sony a6000 since Christmas, and it can do ANYTHING! I is excellent in lower light, has very high ISO settings too and much less noise at high ISOs than my Nikon. Overall, it is an awesome camera.
I like my canon power shot sx170 is it has a built in telephoto and I rarely use my flash. It also has manual availability (which I have not learned to do)
Takes great photos. I take it everywhere with me. I do wish it had a view finder like Beth said. But its very easy to use.
@darylo As Ed @bigmac115 and Vera @vera365 suggested, the Sony a6000. US$600, body only, and then if you are doing wildlife, you'd need more than the standard lens, the total would get you close to $1,000. I don't own the camera, but I really like it a lot. The Auto Focus, especially in low light, is "class leading" for mirror-less system cameras.
The Nikon Coolpix P610 ($500 with the x60 optical zoom lens) or the P900 ($600 with the x80 lens) are worth a look for "all in one." They do have a DSLR-like form factor and are not what you might call "compact" although the lens folds into the body when not in use. They both come in at about 16 ounces, so nothing like the weight of a DSLR and lens, no mirror system. They both have Electronic Viewfinders. Reasonable, not on a par with a true DSLR or the a6000 for low light because of the significantly smaller sensor with cramped pixels, of course. In low light, the auto focus has a distinct tendency to "hunt." But both certainly adequate for the genre. I can't speak for the "equivalent" Canon "bridge" cameras, similarly the Lumix, Olympus and Fuji Film I have no experience with.
My Sony nex7 (mirror less... 24mp (I think) and crop sensor sized) can pull off some pretty impressive stuff w high ISO.... And it comes w the electronic viewfinder...
I agree. Have had a Sony a6000 since Christmas too. After the 'workhorse' kit lens (16-50mm) which came with the camera I got 3 others, my favourite being the 1.8 50mm portrait lens. I love this camera.
The little Panasonic Lumix series are also great (no viewfinder until the most recent model). I have a TZ25 which produced this night shot - handheld, no flash high ISO
I'm doing my entire project this year with a Fujifilm X100T. A fast f/2 lens and very good high ISO performance, coupled with an optical viewfinder and silent leaf shutter might be a good camera for her needs.
It's not a cheap camera, and has no zoom but a fixed 35mm lens. If she needs a zoom maybe the little cousin X30 could be a cheaper alternative. It has a smaller sensor though so high ISO won't be as good as with the aps-c sensor of the X100T.
@runestone@bigmac115@vera365@jengil01@gcy1947@anna45@frankhymus@northy@quietpurplehaze@spock Thank you sooooo much for responding. Looks like great options out there. Just as I committed to a 7D MII in January, I'm seeing the mirrorless beauties emerge and rethinking my choice--but it's only because I don't own nice glass...yet. Hopefully my good friend will see this thread and take it all in! So many good choices. Thanks again. You are the best!!!! (She's meeting me in Bali, so I'm hoping she chooses one of the ones here so I can see what it does!). :)
I'm interested in what you say about the Fuji X100T as I have an X20. I was a bit worried about not having a zoom on the X100T but since also adding a Sony a6000 to my cameras I guess my view about a fixed lens has changed a bit.
@quietpurplehaze If it would be my only camera I would feel too limited by its fixed lens, but I also have a big dslr (Nikon D700) and a m43 camera (Panasonic G5) for when I need interchangeable lenses.
I deliberately chose the X100T for its high quality fixed lens, optical viewfinder and big sensor in a small package to take with me every day this year. It's been three months now and I like the 35mm very much, for many images this is the perfect focal length.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
"Please use your view finder instead of your LCD screen when taking pictures. The light from the LCD screen illuminates the person taking the picture and increases the chances for flushing cranes near the blinds."
That rules out so many small cameras these days that simply do not offer a viewfinder. My last small camera purchase was fraught by the lack of viewfinders, the use of which I deemed to be essential I completely fail to see how a camera can be held steady at arms' length whilst viewing the back screen - plus which of course, my arms are no longer long enough for my eyesight :-) I ended up buying a Nikon P510 bridge camera, which has an electronic viewfinder and does handle low light quite well with it's good ISO range It has long been superseded but I expect a model with similar features is available. Of course many folk would not call it a small camera so it may not fit the bill.
Takes great photos. I take it everywhere with me. I do wish it had a view finder like Beth said. But its very easy to use.
My wife still doesn't know how much I paid for mine 😱😱😱
The Nikon Coolpix P610 ($500 with the x60 optical zoom lens) or the P900 ($600 with the x80 lens) are worth a look for "all in one." They do have a DSLR-like form factor and are not what you might call "compact" although the lens folds into the body when not in use. They both come in at about 16 ounces, so nothing like the weight of a DSLR and lens, no mirror system. They both have Electronic Viewfinders. Reasonable, not on a par with a true DSLR or the a6000 for low light because of the significantly smaller sensor with cramped pixels, of course. In low light, the auto focus has a distinct tendency to "hunt." But both certainly adequate for the genre. I can't speak for the "equivalent" Canon "bridge" cameras, similarly the Lumix, Olympus and Fuji Film I have no experience with.
This was shot at iso6400
I agree. Have had a Sony a6000 since Christmas too. After the 'workhorse' kit lens (16-50mm) which came with the camera I got 3 others, my favourite being the 1.8 50mm portrait lens. I love this camera.
The little Panasonic Lumix series are also great (no viewfinder until the most recent model). I have a TZ25 which produced this night shot - handheld, no flash high ISO
It's not a cheap camera, and has no zoom but a fixed 35mm lens. If she needs a zoom maybe the little cousin X30 could be a cheaper alternative. It has a smaller sensor though so high ISO won't be as good as with the aps-c sensor of the X100T.
I'm interested in what you say about the Fuji X100T as I have an X20. I was a bit worried about not having a zoom on the X100T but since also adding a Sony a6000 to my cameras I guess my view about a fixed lens has changed a bit.
I deliberately chose the X100T for its high quality fixed lens, optical viewfinder and big sensor in a small package to take with me every day this year. It's been three months now and I like the 35mm very much, for many images this is the perfect focal length.
Interesting, thank you. My macro lens for the Sony a6000 is 35mm and it also makes a good walkabout lens - now I know why!