Compact camera with "decent" low light performance

Started Jan 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Barry Margolius Senior Member • Posts: 1,831
Re: Compact camera with "decent" low light performance

I disagree with Chris R.  Yes, he's right, that right this minute the Sony RX100 is probably the best of the compacts for low light, but that doesn't mean that the others "aren't any good".  The Canon SX230 is pretty decent at 800, and can be used at 1600 if you accept the limitations.  It's even usable at 3200 for the very occasional necessity.  (I'd rather have a noisy Canon SX230 picture of Grandma fighting back tears at her grandchild's wedding, than have no picture at all).

Getting back to your question, I do think the Canon SX230 is a good choice, and would be a bit better than the Canon SX200 if you afford it. I've also used the Samsung WB750.  It is quite good at low light, but the learning curve is a bit steep.

This is purely based on intuition and general happiness with the camera.  I have not run any careful analysis of the camera.  Also, I cannot comment on other brands of these cameras although I've heard that the Panasonic and Sony compact superzooms are quite good.

Good Luck,


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow