Camera for indoor pics

yentadevosha ↓

Tue, Nov 29 2011, 6:35 am

I'd like to get a new camera. 2 features that are important to me are beautiful indoor pics and a fast shutter speed. I'm trying to decide between 3 models. The G12, SX230 and the S95. (all are cannon). I would appreciate anyone's experience with these models.

↑ yentadevosha ↓

Tue, Nov 29 2011, 8:20 pm

bump

Anyone with either one of these models?

seeker ↓

Tue, Nov 29 2011, 9:22 pm

No experience here but as I'm pondering pretty much the same question, can I ask people to consider same question/comparison but also include elph series?

Also wondering why you are only considering Canon, coincidence or brand loyalty?

Simple1 ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 6:25 am

What do you consider a high shutter speed. I just bought this and it has a 1500 shutter speed.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/......html

Taking good indoor pictures is more about skill than the camera you use. I've taken professional looking indoor pictures of my kids with a 3 megapixel $100 camera (years ago) and I've taken bad pictures with an expensive camera, when I wasn't paying attention to the details. You need good quality window light and preferably a tripod.

↑ Simple1 ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 6:45 am

yentadevosha wrote:

I looked them up and the G12 and SX230 have much higher shutter speeds than the one I bought. If you look under "specifications" you can compare specs. But there are other important factors such as ISO and aperture.

↑ yentadevosha ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 7:09 am

seeker wrote:

These were recomended to me, and yes they happen to all be canon.

↑ yentadevosha ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 7:10 am

[quote="Simple1"]What do you consider a high shutter speed. I just bought this and it has a 1500 shutter speed.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/......html

Taking good indoor pictures is more about skill than the camera you use. I've taken professional looking indoor pictures of my kids with a 3 megapixel $100 camera (years ago) and I've taken bad pictures with an expensive camera, when I wasn't paying attention to the details. You need good quality window light and preferably a tripod.[/quote
I know you also need skill, but I have a Nikon now, that takes pretty good pics outdoor, but the indoor pics are really bad.

shev

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 7:14 am

I looked into the g12 and the s95. They basically told me that the g12 has more features and u have to be
the type to learn them and use them, while the s95 also takes amazing pics, it doesnt have all the extra features. So u have to know ureself.
btw I have the g12 and I'm extremely happy, it takes amazing pics indoor and outdoor, and also at night the pics are clear

↑ seeker ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 8:07 am

Skill and know-how are important, but so is the camera. I have also taken lovely pictures with an old 3mp camera (and with old disposables, for that matter. But film is a different story) but that one died and I can't get anything out of my newer, 7mp camera. Even in broad daylight the pictures are noisy and flat-looking, and indoors I'm lucky if it even focuses but no matter how good my lighting is, I either get whiteout flash or a yellow cast and dark image. So frustrating.

You can have good window light and a tripod but when your toddler is doing something cute after dark (which is practically all the time now for the next few months) you don't want to wait to set up a tripod, let alone wait for daylight!

↑ Simple1

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 8:31 am

seeker wrote:

If my child is doing something cute I just flip on the flash - something you can do with any camera. Not beautiful, but for sure good enough to capture the moment. What I'm saying is that indoor lighting is usually not enough to get a beautiful picture without an added light source. And I think, to do so, you would need to know how to play with the settings. But I could be wrong because I never really tried. I do know that wedding pros who are used to shooting in venues that don't allow flash, try to buy cameras in the $2,000 range.

Mommy3.5

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 4:14 pm

panasonic lumix, IME is the fastest shutter speed and, takes awesome shots even in the dark. If I have time I'll try to post an example.

↑ seeker ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 5:12 pm

Simple1 wrote:

seeker wrote:

I was talking about with flash. Plus fine room lights. There is just no cure for a bad camera. And it's from a fairly well-liked brand, too. Good thing I didn't pay money for it or I would really be sad.

↑ yentadevosha ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 5:43 pm

Thanx everyone. I ordered the g12, I have a 45 day money back guarentee so I'll
play around with it, and if I'll like it I'll keep it if not, I'll try something else.

↑ seeker ↓

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 6:23 pm

Tischadshi! Where did you order from with that guarantee? Sounds like a good deal.

↑ yentadevosha

Wed, Nov 30 2011, 7:36 pm

seeker wrote:

Tischadshi! Where did you order from with that guarantee? Sounds like a good deal.

Buydig.com

daisy ↓

Wed, Jan 04 2012, 1:40 pm

bump.

what did you decide in the end? I am also looking at cameras in that range, but I am leaning towards panasonic lumix gf3 or lx5.

↑ seeker

Wed, Jan 04 2012, 6:37 pm

I got the Canon S95 on Amazon's gold box deals right before Chanukah. It was the only way I was going to be able to afford anything in this league so I had to "chap the metzia" without doing too much more thought and comparison. I'd read enough to tell me that S95 was supposed to be an excellent camera, but I didn't really look into the others discussed here because they were out of my reach anyway. After buying it I did a little more reading because I wanted to see what I'd bought.

My personal conclusion from what I read online is that you would do well with either the Canon or Panasonic (LX-5 seems to be the one people are comparing to the S95), and it's mostly a matter of personal preference and comfort because the shape/size and handling are different. The Canon is smaller and sleeker, but a pro used to handling a dSLR might not like that - more professional photographers might also miss having a hotshoe for external flash and other such doodads that come with bigger size, but then again more professional photographers probably have another camera for serious business anyway. The Panasonic has a longer zoom range at both ends I believe, so if zooming is important to you that's another point thataway - but if your budget can raise to the newer, very droolworthy Canon S100 I think it catches up. Unless you get some kind of steal deal like I did, the S95 and LX5 are priced pretty similarly.

So far I'm quite pleased with the S95. I'm still learning how to get the most out of it but I've already scored some beautiful pictures (PM if you want to see; though plenty of others have posted samples online it was hard to find pictures with people in them.) If I had the choice again and the money to play with, I might have looked into the other options more, but being that this is what I got for the price I got it at, I'm very happy. There doesn't seem to be much that can't be done with it if you play around enough, and it's tiny enough to go anywhere (not as small as an Elph of course, but much smaller than others of this caliber, including the panasonic)

I think it boils down to what kind of photographer you are and what you will want to use it for. (A pro looking for something spare and pocketable? Marvelous sunsets with a tripod or little kids on the loose?) And definitely go into B&H or someplace where you can get your hands on both to see what feels right in your hands, and is easy for you to navigate, because that's one of the biggest differences. (I test-drove at Best Buy, but it wasn't so helpful - the cameras are tethered to these clunky things so you can't really feel out the weight and handling differences, and some of their power feeds were messed up so not everything would turn on...)

↑ daisy

Thu, Jan 05 2012, 12:08 pm

Thanks for the helpful review, seeker! I'm still undecided.