Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Question

Sony WX80 or Canon ELPH500 or Fujifilm XF1 or...?

Jan 5, 2015 3:25PM PST

I posted those three names in the title in order to give an idea of the kind of point-and-shoot camera I'm looking for. I would say the Canon ELPH340 might also be in the picture, as well as anything else you can think of.

I mainly photograph as a function of wildlife research. I need to be able to take pictures in all lighting conditions, and though I take both close and far shots my current work emphasizes close-up pictures of small animals. To that end, I'm looking for a camera with the following features:

Primary: high image quality, works well in low light, takes good macro pictures

Secondary: durable, decent action photos, takes shots relatively quickly

Would be nice...: a decent zoom (not expecting that with other features), decent battery life

My price range is under $250, though under $200 is preferable.

Any thoughts on the three cameras I mention above, or anything else out there? Really, having a durable camera that can take high quality photos, especially macros in low light, trumps everything else.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Answer
One more question
Jan 5, 2015 3:26PM PST

I've never owned a smartphone before, but to be able to record the pictures on a phone, especially with embedded GPS information, and then directly upload them to a database would be a really helpful feature for my research. If I were to get a smartphone with a decent camera capability, how much would I be losing on picture quality compared to the cameras that I've listed, especially in low light and macro?

- Collapse -
Camera Information
Jan 6, 2015 12:00AM PST

A low light camera (not using flash) requires a bright lens (at least f/2.0) and a larger sensor.
This increases the cost range to $400 - $500 and decreases the zoom factor to about 5X.
Currently there is no low light camera available for less than that.

GPS is a battery hog and will cut the battery charge by 50% while it's on.

...

- Collapse -
Well, for my price range...
Feb 6, 2015 9:34PM PST

Yes, I'm fine settling for not getting a high zoom camera this time around. And I've also rejected the expectation of getting or using GPS functionality.

But to say that only a $400-500 camera can shoot in low light...obviously there's going to be some sort of gradient. At might price range, going up to $200-250, what's the best thing available.

- Collapse -
Low Light
Feb 7, 2015 12:28AM PST

Almost any camera can take pictures in low light.
Most small cameras don't do a good job of it.
What you will run into is noise.
Noise rears its ugly head first in the dark areas of the picture.
Noise looks like what was called "grainey" back in the film camera days.

You said you want "Primary: high image quality, works well in low light, takes good macro pictures".
Most small cameras do macro pictures well and provide very good optical zoom.
They can function OK in low light if you use a tripod and slow shutter speeds.
That requires some manual settings too.

For low cost, low light, small cameras:
If you can find one, the Canon S100 sells for about $299.
Canon shows it to be out of stock and no longer manufactured.
The S110 is the latest version and sells for $399.

..