My camera is a Canon PowerShot S110. It was marketed overseas as the iXus V. I think there are probably a lot of people in this forum who have the same or similar model, so I'll ask here before trying photography forums.

Without flash, this camera takes poor low-light pictures. Even with flash, the subject has to be very close to the lens in order for the flash to have any effect at all.

Setting the camera to "Manual" mode and adjusting the exposure control up and down seems to have zero effect.

Any tips?

Strange... with my s200 the flash is TOO bright... they must have overcompensated. =] I end up useing the night mode flash in manual mode most of the time. It gives a really nice motion blur but still captures the freeze frame.

night mode flash

Eh? Do you mean the "Slow-synchro" mode? That's the only one on my Ixus 400 that I can find that says anything about night-time.

CCDs are not noted for their ability to take good low light pictures. That said how low is the low light? Have you tried exposing the images for a few seconds (on a tripod of course)? Camera meters also tend to be inaccurate in the dark so that could another cause of the pictures not coming out in low light. I have taken long (10 second) exposures with my Powershot A30, they do come out but they take a long time to "post-process" probably because it has to do a lot of de-noising of the image.

That said how low is the low light?

By low light, I mean anything other than flash or daylight. Low light includes any indoor shots without flash. Even shots with fluorescent office lighting.

Anything taken indoors without flash requires a long exposure. So long that I can't hold the camera still enough to prevent blurring without bracing it against something or using a tripod.

In reply to:

---

By low light, I mean anything other than flash or daylight. Low light includes any indoor shots without flash. Even shots with fluorescent office lighting.

---

You'd think your camera would be able to meter and give you a picture in light like this. What mode are you using to take pictures like this? If you are in some automatic mode you might try the "P" mode or "M" mode (adjust until the camera says the exposure should be right). Like you said though you will need a tripod to make any indoor shot with aritifical light stable- unless you can change your ISO setting to something fairly high like 400 or 800.

I don't see an ISO setting, just an exposure control that goes from -2 to +2. It has "Automatic" and "Manual", and neither setting nor the exposure control seem to affect this.

Looks at the specs it looks like the lowest shutter speed on Tony's camera is one second. It also looks like there is no control over the ISO/ASA setting, so he can't even boost the sensitivity at the expense of more noise.

The CCD in my Canon 10D is quite happy in low light

Edit:

Doh! Of course, the sensor in my 10D is CMOS, not CCD.

Does it give you an indication of the shutter speed and apeture it's going to use in Automatic mode? If it does note what it is indoors. If it's at 1 second it may just be too dark for a nonflash picture. I did notice reading the specs of this camera that it's min. shutter speed is one second and it's ISO is 100. So indoors it's possible it's just not able to do a long enough exposure to get an image though it would have to be pretty dark. Not to be a camera snob but my advice would be to dump it and move up to a Powershot A## series (or a Digital Rebel if you have a little more $$ to spare)

I can get an image indoors, it's just that I can't get a non-blurry one without a tripod. There is no indication of a shutter speed, but one second sounds about right based on listening to the shutter click.

When I use a flash, the flash only seems to reach about ten feet or so. The biggest problem with the flash is if I go to one of my kid's school presentations, the flash illuminates the row of parents in front of me and never quite gets to the stage.

I agree that a different camera would solve the problem. But I love the portability of this one. It's so tiny I can keep it in my pocket or my empeg bag all the time, so I always have it with me.

When I use a flash, the flash only seems to reach about ten feet or so. The biggest problem with the flash is if I go to one of my kid's school presentations, the flash illuminates the row of parents in front of me and never quite gets to the stage.

You've pretty much just run up against the limitations of your camera, and you're not going to be able to do too much to make it work. You already know how far your flash will reach, and you know that you can steady the camera on just about anything to make long exposures workable without a flash.

You're just going to have to be one of those parents who walks up to the front row if you want to take a picture. However, you'll never get anything other than a snapshot using the built in flash of a pocket sized camera.

You can take some great shots with point and shoot cameras, but you have to accept the good (having it with you) with the lack of features.

Matthew

However, you'll never get anything other than a snapshot using the built in flash of a pocket sized camera.

Yep, and that is pretty true of any camera with a built in flash (film or digital). A flash is really only useful for at most 10 to 20 feet unless it is a big honking studio style external. I would look at this as an excuse to upgrade to something in the prosumer space where you probably get a little better flash and can adjust the effective ISO speed to compensate for low light conditions

-Mike

This camera is very limited by the fixed ISO-100 sensitivity. ISO-100 is only really good for very bright outdoor conditions, or perhaps on a tripod in less than sunny conditions.

I generally use ISO-400 or higher for indoor shots; or ISO-200 for flash photos (doubles the range of the built-in flash).

Cheers

I agree that a different camera would solve the problem. But I love the portability of this one. It's so tiny I can keep it in my pocket or my empeg bag all the time, so I always have it with me.

Part of the problem is that your camera is a little out of date. Most of the small digital cameras now (including the new Ixus models) have a wider range of sensitivities. Your camera only does ISO 100, most of them now do from ISO 50 to ISO 400.

The jump from ISO 100 to ISO 400 means the sensor is 4 times as sensitive to light. That means in the same situation one of these new cameras will be able to use a four times faster shutter speed than your Ixus, meaning you are less likely to end up with blurred pictures.

With increased sensitivity comes increased noise, but the current crop of cameras probably don't have that much noise at 400 than yours does at 100.

As a comparision, on the Canon 10D I have 800, 1600 and 3200. I regularly use ISO 1600 in low light, the 10D has less noise at 1600 than many small digital cameras have at 50 (because the photo cells in the sensor are so much larger, which reduces noise). The Digital Rebel has 800 and 1600 as well, but not 3200 (which is not a great loss, 3200 is quite noisy), but the DR is a big step from the Ixus in both size and price

If you want good low light performance, but without going a large as one of the DSLRs then there are a few cameras that have 800 ISO:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dscf828.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixs5000.asp (but only at 1MP size)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixs7000.asp (but only at lower resolutions)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Minolta/minolta_dimagea1.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_cp5700.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_cp4500.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_cp5000.asp

I'm sure there are some more, but I'm starting to get bored...

These are all quite a bit bigger than the Ixus. To my knowledge Canon don't do above ISO 400 on any of their compact cameras (not even their flagship G5).

Canon are planning on pretty much replacing their whole range of compact digital cameras this year (I think they plan to release something like 40 new models). I suspect the announcements will start in February, with the first big camera show of the year. Perhaps there will be some new compacts with better ISO ranges ?

Perhaps there will be some new compacts with better ISO ranges ?

Ixus 400 has more ISO modes: Auto, 50/100/200/400.

Ixus 400 has more ISO modes: Auto, 50/100/200/400.

I didn't mean better ranges than Tony's Ixus, I mean better ranges than the current Canon compacts manage. None of them go as far as 800 ISO, not even the G5 (although in the review of the G5 at http://www.dpreview.com/ Phil does say "In reality this range is closer to other manufacturers ISO 100 - 800")

Looks like the Canon Digital Rebel has got some competition now, Nikon have a six megapixels, $1000 digital SLR:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012806nikond70.asp

And they have got a reply to the Sony 828 as well, with the Nikon Coolpix 8700, 8 mp, 8x zoom:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012805nikoncp8700.asp

I didn't mean better ranges than Tony's Ixus

Yeah, I know. I was pointing out that, if Tony's Ixus v doesn't have an ISO setting at all, then the 400 is better. It's still not enough, though if I was that bothered, I'd buy a bigger digital camera, rather than a compact.

I was that bothered, I'd buy a bigger digital camera, rather than a compact

I must have become a DSLR snob, I think of anything smaller than a Digital Rebel as a "compact"

In my experience (enthusiastic amature - Canon A2E, Canon S35 (predecessor to the S50), Canon 10D), I was never able to get really satisfying indoor shots with any built-in flash. That's because I really don't care for the inevitable 'head shadow ring' effect. As soon as I stepped up to an external flash (hot shoe type), I was sold. Bounce flash, diffuser, range, less red-eye, flash exposure readings... it's no comparison. My advice is to try a compact P&S that has a hot-shoe and use an external flash unit (the G5 and its predecessors have one) for those times you need it. 400 should be plenty of ISO range with a good flash. This eliminates the smallest P&S cameras, but the G5 isn't that big.

-Zeke

but the G5 isn't that big

Until it has an external flash stuck on the top of it

Yes, but I was assuming Tony would be smart enough to remove it when he went hiking etc!

-Zeke

I have a Canon G1 with the hot-shoe. I can say that the G series is a good mid-level camera and takes pretty good pictures, and has had good reviews on dpreview.com. I like mine, but it is much, much heavier than most other compact cameras out there.

The gallery linked above contains photos taken by my wife (who seems to have a better eye than I).

Ixus 400 has more ISO modes: Auto, 50/100/200/400.

Ah, this is good to know. I've been coveting my neighbor's new PowerShot s400, and if I ever upgrade, it's good to know that it's more capable of getting low-light shots.

In the meantime, is there a such thing as a small portable external flash or light source?

Carry a lighter? [ducks]



-Zeke

In the meantime, is there a such thing as a small portable external flash or light source?

You can get a "slave" flash unit. Modern flash systems have the camera talking to all the flashes via radio. Back in the not-too-old-days, however, remote flashes could be triggered simply by the bright light from the main flash. Wedding photographers tend to use this sort of gear. See, for example, this photo from one of my cousin's weddings. My flash triggered the remote.

I did some quick digging around on B&H Photo Video (just search for "slave flash"). There's something called a Digi-slave Pro that can be programmed to do exactly the right thing for you. It's USD 240. They've got a cheaper model for USD 150, and the bottom of the line for USD 100. You can also get the USD 50 Phoenix Digital Slave Flash, which seems to include a nice mounting bracket. Of course, I have no idea how well these things do at figuring out your existing camera, but I imagine the "digital" ones do a better job than traditional slaves at dealing with your camera's "pre-flash" (if it does such a thing).

Personally, I've got a Canon G3 (having given my older Canon G1 to my sister as a birthday gift), and I have an external Speedlite 420EX flash. Bigger flashes are the answer to your problem.

If, for some reason, you're hearing the siren song of a new camera, I'd encourage you to hang out until the end of February, when the big photo industry tradeshow happens in Vegas. The pre-announcements are already starting...

Thanks for the information on the slave flash units. Sounds like exactly the sort of thing I was asking for. Looks like even the bottom of the line unit would be appropriate for the sort of situations I'm thinking about.

It's nice to see Alec Baldwin at a Jewish wedding....

That's Mister Asshole to you.

Wow, is that really him? If not, he's a dead ringer in that photo.

Indeed, the groom is quite involved in the NYC democratic party, and Alec Baldwin, Hillary Clinton, NBA commissioner David Stern, and maybe some other big names attended the wedding. My cousin, the bride, seems to be taking it all in stride. Of course, I've got more photos online.

For what it's worth, I think I didn't have my big flash with me at the time, but I can't remember.

Uhhh. Weird. I was just making a joke....