Hi Paul, I ordered the s95 yesterday and then canceled when I read somewhere this cam could only do up to 800 iso. I take the same kind of pics you describe , lots of them (and flower pics). If I can get as good a pic indoors as my f31, in low light with this cam, then I'm putting that order back in. You seem to be the only person discussing this cam the way I use one, lots of low lights of people opening presents, especially. Can I get as good a pic as this with the s95, if so, I'm putting my order back in:
Thanks so much,
Rita
Hi Rita,
If you could get that shot with the f31fd, I have no doubt that you could get it with the s95. There has been some debate over whether the s90 (and the s95 is the same or slightly better) truly had better high iso performance or whether it was the same, but there's no doubt that the s90 has a lens that's a full stop better in low light, so even if the high iso performance is identical it's still going to be better at it.
I'm a slight bit puzzled, as you said that that picture was taken at 1/60, but the exif data on the picture says 1/30. But with the s90 you would be able to take that picture at either a stop better iso (iso800 rather than iso1600), or a stop better shutter speed (1/60 rather than 1/30).
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, I still feel that the s95 is still about a "stop" short of being able to consistently taking pictures in typical indoor lighting at iso800, which I would prefer, but if you're getting the shots you want with the f31 I have no doubt you'll be able to get those shots plus some new ones with the s95 as well. (And no camera short of micro four/thirds or a dslr have any better low light performance.)
The iso800 max setting may have come from the fact that on the s90 iso1600 was the max in P and AUTO mode, while in TV and A mode the max was iso800. You could still push it if you shot in RAW, then increase the RAW brightness afterwards, but that's besides the point as the s95 lets the iso go up to iso1600 in
all modes (or you can set the max iso to be less than that, but obviously that's not a concern of yours).
I'm sure the s90 is "grainy at iso200" -
compared to a digital slr , lol. There's always some dslr snob who blows the picture up to 100% and complains about any sort of noise whatsoever, no matter how subtle. However,
compared to an f31 , noise will be better or the same. Those people are like the people who complain that their Toyota Camry doesn't corner with the precision of a Formula 1 Sports Car. In reality, you're not driving a race on a track, and the steering is great for driving to the supermarket.
I've posted this before, and at the risk of other people being really sick of seeing it, here's a picture from my s90 at iso800 -
At any size you can see it at on dpreview by clicking on it (you can click on it twice to make it larger), it's a fantastic picture. If you actually click the "original" link and view it at 100% magnification, you'll see that there's more noise in the picture - noise you can't even see at screen size.
Now that you mentioned your shaky hands, I do want to mention one thing though. The s90 was pretty slipper to hold onto, and the s95 is far better. However - it's still not an entirely ergonomic camera. I looked up a picture of the f31, and I don't believe it would be any
worse than the f31 or anything - the f31 doesn't look particularly ergonomic, either.
But if you're carrying the camera in your purse (rather than the jeans pocket, where the difference in size is much more noticeable), you might also consider a Panasonic LX5. People claim that it
is more ergonomic and easier to hold onto, though sometimes these claims are overblown - I cannot say as when I was looking at it's predecessor the LX3 I was only concerned about whether it would fit in my jeans pocket (which it does not, at least not very well). But that's what people keep saying - I might encourage you to go to a camera store and try holding onto one to see which you like better.
The LX5 has roughly the same high iso performance that the s95 does (people debate it on and on and on, but that plus the comparisons I've seen says to me that they're the same).
The LX5 also
+ Has the same lens rating in low light as the s95 when you don't zoom, but a better lens for low light after you start zooming
+ Supposedly is more ergonomic and easier to hold onto
- Has a physical lens cap, which (unlike the s95) requires you to physically take it off and put it back on when you turn the camera on and off (I've heard you can get some sort of accessory to get around this, but I don't know much about it)
- I've read several times that you have to half-press the shutter button to get a live exposure preview - in other words, "how bright is the picture going to be when I take the pics". Unlike the s95 which does this automatically, all the time you have the camera on.
Hope this helps. If you have any other questions, let me know. Good luck!
