Really it all depends on how you plan on using the camera. If you are wanting to take shots in low light situations, then sensor size is of upmost importance. If you are going to be taking mostly shots in good light then the sensor size isn't all that important.

.....

Oh, and look for a camera with a fast aperture so that you can keep the ISO as low as possible in low light situations.

Personally if I were looking for a point and shoot, I would be looking for zoom range rather than sensor size. The reason for this is that I want a p&s for versatility rather than image quality. If I want IQ I'll bust out the DSLR (don't get me wrong, in good light most modern p&s's will have good IQ even with a small sensor). Also just IMO, it is almost always better to frame the shot correctly the first time than to crop it later.

You should be asking yourself what shots will she be missing if she used a fixed focal length lens. Then what shots would she be missing if she used a slow F3.3 or higher super zoom lens.

My guess is that she will probably end up getting super blurry and unusable pictures indoors and just slightly unsharp pictures do to cropping outdoors.

Basically, you can always crop with todays cameras because they cram so many pixels on the sensor. There is nothing you can do to help a slow lens with an ultra tiny sensor.

So, sensor size is more important than a low f aperture in low light conditions - or do they work off each other? If I could get a camera with an f2.2 or f2.4 with a 1/2.5" sensor would that be better than a 1/1.7" sensor with apertures from, say f2.8? It looks like almost all the larger sensor cameras actually have better than f2.8 anyway.

It looks like I can go up to about 5x or 7x and still have a decent lens and smaller CMOS sensor (i.e. f less than 2.8 and 26mm or wider). I think this may be the best compromise without spending more than 400 bucks.

You should also consider the aperture as you zoom. Do any of these camera have a constant aperture throughout the zoom range? I don't know if any point and shoots advertise that feature, but it'd be really, really nice.

You should also consider the aperture as you zoom. Do any of these camera have a constant aperture throughout the zoom range? I don't know if any point and shoots advertise that feature, but it'd be really, really nice.

PAS!?!?!?! Kill the noob! No specialized gear! oh wait wrong POS....point and shoots are normally abbreviated P&S

Appreciate the info... thanks!

I've narrowed my choices down to eight cameras (in no order and pros and cons are relative to other cameras in this list):

Canon S95; Pro's - f2.0, 28mm wide, CCD 43.32mm2 sensor, ok screen, 720vid, ISO 3200 (12800 boost). Con's - 3.8x zoom, 1.9 f/sec, 1/1600-15sec, price little high at 370

Get the S95. Remember the best camera for every situation is the one you actually have with you. The S95 is the best camera in that list that will fit in your pocket. Nuff said.

Yeah, the G12 isn't going to fit in a pocket too well. I also wouldn't link it in with the PAS category, but it would be my favorite out of the above listed due to more manual settings. (We have the old Canon G2 from 1999 or 2000 which cost a whopping $1000 back then. )

The S95 is essentially a G12 in a smaller package. The S95 does lack some of the external control buttons and dials that the G12 has though. However, the S95 zoom is only marginally smaller than the G12 zoom.

Otherwise they are basically the same camera. I would never buy the G12 over the S95 even if the G12 was cheaper because the S95 is actually a pocket-able camera.

Well, I've already out-ruled the Canon WX5 because I found out it has no manual controls. Duh! Also decided against the G12 due to price and size, which also makes the P7000 and LX5 borderline too.

Funny, but I never realized the Panasonic LX5 has a lens cover. Wouldn't that be kinda annoying for a p&s? After reading about the Samsung TL350 I'm kinda intrigued about it. How is the video controls on the S95? Can you zoom while filming or take stills while filming?

Another question I had was the importance of ISO. Is it great to have ISO capabilities above 1600 and how does aperture and sensor size come into play there?

What is the Canon WX5? I have never heard of that camera. I assume you mean the S95? If so then that camera has very good manual controls thanks to its nifty control ring.

Also, most compact small sensor cameras like the S95, G12, and LX5 are not really useful above ISO 800. No matter what you do you are not going to get good ISO sensitivity out of a small sensor with more than about 3 megapixels. Some people actually go back and buy the old Canon G2 camera because it had better ISO 400 performance than today's other small sensor cameras and it had a wonderful F2.0-F2.5 lens.

The Samsung camera is a 1/2.3" sensor. That will never be as good as the 1/1.7" sensor in the Canon S95. Trust me you are not going to find a better camera that will fit in your pants pocket than the S95.

Even with a DSLR I try to keep the ISO at 1600 or below for the most part. Don't get me wrong, having a higher ISO can allow you to get photos that you wouldn't be able to otherwise, but on a P&S they certainly won't be good quality photos. If having a super grainy, noisy low detailed photo is better than no photo at all, then a higher ISO will allow you to get the photo. Just be aware of the tradeoff.

Oh you meant the Sony WX5. Yea it looks great on paper and it does have some nice video capabilities. However, its smaller sensor will never compete with the Canon S95.

Most of the point and shoot cameras around are going to be equally crappy when shooting at higher ISOs. The more modern the sensor and processing capability, the better the high ISO performance, but I would bet on getting noisy photos at 1000 or above, and really noisy photos above 1600.

If you get some good noise reduction software (Noise Ninja or Lightroom 3, for instance), you can get remarkably clean shots out of noisy photos.