With that camera the only way not to get the water color effect is to shoot at ISO 200 or less, maybe 400 in a pinch..
If you want or need to shoot at ISO 1600 or above then you need a DSLR..
IMO, the current crop of compact and ultrazoom cameras with their small (1/10 the size of a 35mm frame) and high MP counts (7-10) are basically unuseable at over ISO 200. the amount of noise reduction required smears the image beyond all recognition..
If you want to be able to use high ISO's, you will need to go to a dSLR. any of the entry level models from any manufacturer will give you acceptable results. the real cost of going to an SLR system is the lenses... good lenses cost $$$ and weigh a lot - they need to be physically larger to accomodate the larger imaging circle of the larger sensors..
Cheers,S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..
When you use a tripod turn IS or VR off..
FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...
In low light, with a P&S at lower ISOs, the only ways I can think of to get sharp shots of moving subjects (you mentioned productions at theaters) are:.
1. use continuous drive and hope that one of several shots you take is reasonably sharp; and/or2. use a wider angle; and/or.
3. rely on flash (activate the flash and take the shot at 1/180 or whatever the maximum sync speed is). This will unfortunately probably drown out the ambient lighting..
4. If the ambient lighting is much brighter than the subject, you could also try to meter for the ambient light then use flash I think this also will result in a reasonably sharp subject while preserving the ambient light. Example: http://planetneil.com/...ngents/flash-photography-techniques/9-more-examples/.
(Sorry if this info is too basic for you.)..
I spent a few hours with it and my kneecap, trying to go through the iso vs F-stop vs shutter speed.It does help to experiment..
I remember the college classes and those lovely notebooks that you took notes on your exposures.... I guess I will do my experimenting again..
I do see the reasoning and I have found it much easier to cope with the "non-correct" output a lot more than the over stabilized.I think that will be the trick... getting a feel for the right isos etc..
I will say, I was having much better luck running through manual settings with the surface quality of the images. BADLY over or under exposed but honestly, cleaner in the high numbers than I expected!.
I am breathing a sigh of relief that this nice little toy is just expecting me to do some of the work. I am seeing the potential.I would post, but the boyfriend (the model for all the tweaking) is shy..
I will say the read-eye reduction was amazing. I swear, I hid him in a dark room on the other side of a wall and snapped him for how low the lighting would go and I did not get ONE spooky-eyed shot. Rather amazing, in my estimation! I hate flashes but there were some more than decent reasons I can see for this one!dj*..