Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 4, 2005, 12:34 PM   #1
Junior Member
MusicMonkey's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7

I am looking to buy a camera for low-light conditions such as concerts and night time city pictures. It is down to these two cameras (the ones that fall into my price range). Please help me choose between the Canon SD200 or the Canon A510. Thanks in advance.
MusicMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 4, 2005, 1:30 PM   #2
Senior Member
PhilR.'s Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440

Neither camera is a good choice for concerts, unless your subjects are very still. Either should be able to take night city pics, but the manual exposure modes available with the A510 will give you much greater flexibility. That, plus the fact that the A510 is cheaper and uses cheaper and easier to find AA's would swing my vote.

PhilR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2005, 11:11 AM   #3
Junior Member
MusicMonkey's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7

Thanks for the feedbackPhilR.

I was wondering if anyone has used either a Canon A510 or Canon SD200 at a concert.

Also, does anyone else have an opinion about these two cameras and which you think is better. Thanks in advance.
MusicMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2005, 7:02 AM   #4
Junior Member
Terry Bogard's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3

I agree. It's not Canon, but how about F10? Right now, it's the only compact camera that has goodlow light shooting capability tks to it'supto 1600. I own it, like many on this forum, & it really works F10 should onlycost abit more than SD200 as well.

Ihad SD200 (really decent camera) but never took it to concert/ thatkind ofenvironment--tookDrebel instead (both gone now, sadly ). Sorry, no actual experience w/ a510, but as Phil said, it should take better pics in low light env--but not by much.

Having said that, lately, I end up brining & thus taking most shots w/ U50 (2mp, no zoom) camera to everywhere I go, and end up w/ some night pics. F10 stays athome unless I know there is an event/ night time coming--even it has infintely more "photo" shooting power.So,recently, most of my photos go thru photoshop for post proccess :sad: And both are compact--I guess it's the size thing to me. Though F10 has much better low noise than S2 IS, I entertained the thoughtof selling F10& get S2, Ha:?. Seriously.

Terry Bogard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2005, 10:59 AM   #5
moondaug's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 52

The best camera for low-light situations would actually be the Canon G6 because it has a faster f/2.0 lense. Or outside of Canon, I would recommend a Minolta Dimage A1/A2 because it has a built anti-shake feature which effectively gives it a faster lense and its sensor does see in the IR to some degree.But given a choice between a Canon SD or the A series cameras, you're best of with an A camera due to it's more robust manual controls.
moondaug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 9:28 PM   #6
Voyager13b's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 53

Along that line of thinking, the Canon S1 would qualify as a cheap concert shooter. It has a fast F2.8 to 3.1 lens with a 10x zoom factor to begin with, has IS to stretch your hand held ability by a couple of stops, and can take great movies. Granted, it tops out at ISO 400, and is noisy there, but what would you get from a camera with a lesser zoom, and no IS at ISO 1600? The S1 also uses cheap CF memory cards, AA batteries, and has a current street price of under $240. Most SLR users pay that much for one lens.

It doesn't get any better than that in the value department. A real "prosumer" super zoom camera at a price that won't cause heart pain if it gets run over by a truck. My first high speed 1 gig CF memory card for my old Canon S400 pocket cam cost me as much as the complete S1 package retails for today. The old S400 is still a constant companion, as it is small and takes fine pics, but the S1 blows it away in concert lighting situations. Actually, the S1 blows the S400 away in every situation that doesn't require a camera the size of a pack of cigarettes. Even the 3.2mp sensor of the S1 is fine for awesome 8x10 prints, and is equal to any other sensor for producing 640x480 movies.

The first mega zoom digicam I spent cash on was the S2, and I think it's an incredible camera that is far more than a simple upgrade of the S1, but at the current selling price of the S1, I plan to buy one as a backup cam, or to use in situations where the future health of a camera might be in question. The S1 seems perfect for casual concert recording. Also consider that a sharp image recorded on a 3.2mp sensor with a quality 2.8 to 3.1 lens with IS beats the ability of any other sensor, no matter how large, if it is not as fast, and doesn't have IS in it's light path.

Also, even a 7 or 8mp pocket cam with a 3x optical zoom will most likely have less than an F2.8 aperture, and most likey not have IS at all. A side by side comparison between the S1 and a pocket wonder will reveal that the S1 is much sharper (not much that Photoshop can do here), that the S1 offers images with less blur due to subject motion (flash is no help at a concert. A fast lens is the key), and most important, the S1 lens at 10x zoom setting is still faster than most pocket cams at their shortest focal length. This is a very important point. Here is the reasoning behind it.

A sharp, image stabilized zoom lens that can take a still shot or a movie clip at F 2.8 to 3.1 will use every bit of the 3.2mp sensor of the S1 to record a crisp, high contrast shot. With an 8mp, 3x zoom pocket cam without IS, and with a smaller starting aperture, the initial image will most likely not be as sharp, and when you use Photoshop or another post processing package to "zoom" to the 10x cropping you wanted in the first place, you are still stuck with a blurry shot, but you have now eliminated so much of the initial sensor recording pixels that you are now loking at less sensor pixels than the S1 offered in the first place.

Huge sensors can be a good substitute for optical zoom in the lab, but nothing beats a reasonable sensor size, a great chunk of glass, and a quality IS feature in the long run. At less than the current cost of a hundred gallons of gas, the S1 is the bargain of the decade. If you want more, and can justify nearly double the street price, the S2 brings the "prosumer" mega zoom camera to a whole new level. Pick your weapon, and prepare your wallet.......

Voyager13b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2005, 4:39 AM   #7
Senior Member
kassandro's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 448

I completely agree with Voyager13b. I bought a Powershot S1 for 250€ including VAT and rarely use the flash indor. The excellent image stabiliser of the S1 is more useful than a fast lense.
kassandro is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:01 AM.