A good point-and-shoot camera that takes good night/low light photos?

I've owned 3 Panasonic LUMIX series cams. Currently, DMC-SZ1. I really love it.

what cnc said. i mostly agree with the "i use an iphone and a real camera" type comments, but something like a sony nex is as small as you want, but still has a DSLR-sized sensor. Here's what you buy: https://www.keh.com/364322/sony-nex-3n-white-digital-camera-body-16-1-m-p for $149 https://www.keh.com/359901/sony-16-50mm-f-3-5-5-6-e-pz-oss-black-e-mount-autofocus-lens-40-5 with the powerzoom, it will look, act, and fit in your pocket like a point and shoot... but you're getting an APS-C sized sensor, like a real DSLR uses. Nothing else in this price range can compete with that in any way. Worthwhile upgrades later include adapters to use old lenses from various brands in manual focus(the 3n supports, i believe, highlighting focus lock like the NEX 6 does) which you can buy at thrift stores for peanuts, the sony 20mm lens(i paid $120 for mine at a best buy deal, do NOT pay much more), and the sigma 19mm ART lens which is a monster deal and one of the best lenses out there for any system. Depth of field capability, low light performance, resolving fine detail, RAW file capability. It matches or exceeds the performance of my old canon DSLR in every way. The 3N especially is of a new enough revision of sensor and processor that the low light performance can best be described as somewhere between "night vision" and "DUDEEEEE". Also, one of your main complaints was getting a good exposure of both the person in front of, and the skyline. Well these cameras kick ass at dynamic range. I basically broke mine taking really contrasty shots in dusty places over the summer but oh jeeze, the things it can do. For a bit under $300 for the basic setup i described, you will be VERY happy. It takes a bit to really learn how to use all the fun of it, but even in full-auto mode it'll take great pictures. And it's very up-gradable and expandable later, too.

*A camera that is small enough to fit in a slim purse or better yet a large pant or coat pocket. *A camera that can hold battery power long enough for a day of sightseeing. *A camera that can take a picture quickly after I press the button so I can make those quick captures. *A camera that will not falter just because it is not full daylight out. For instance, I want to be able to take a picture of someone standing in front of a skyline and have both person and skyline clearly visible, instead of JUST the person. With what I have now, I can't even take a picture of JUST the city skyline at night without it looking like crap. This may sound facetious, but I assure you it isn't: have you considered an iPhone for all these applications? * Even the iPhone 6+ is small enough to fit in a purse; the 6 fits in pockets easily enough. * A day of use is really no problem, unless you're in a poor cellular coverage area and do not switch cellular off. (Then it keeps hunting for a signal by boosting radio power.) * iPhones have been buffering photos before you press the shutter button, so that you really have no shutter lag. * You're basically describing High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing here. You mentioned getting better results than your camera with your Samsung, and while I have no personal experience with that, the reviews indicate that the iPhone camera is the best of its kind. Con: The laws of physics dictate that a thin phone won't have much light gathering power. You can't put a large lens far enough away to focus if you're limited to the iPhone thickness. (What they could do with a classic Nokia candy bar!) Pro: You have incredible engineering talent devoted to maximizing image quality every step of the way after the lens. Much more so than any camera maker can offer. http://iphonephotographyschool.com/low-light/. http://improvephotography.com/30019/iphone-6-camera-depth-review/. http://connect.dpreview.com/post/6303555427/apple-iphone-6-plus-camera-review?page=11. You get the idea. Either you should go with a full-on DSLR and a hefty prime lens, or consider an iPhone. P&S is a dying breed.

You want optical zoom... Real zoom rather than just bigger pixels. There are digital cameras with decent optical zoom, but the real way to do this is with a DSLR and a lens. The scenarios you describe are inherent limitations of the technology and are why DSLR, big lenses, tripods, and whatnot are still in use. That said, I have an iPhone 5s that I'm pretty pressed with and will do HDR. I also use the VSCO cam app since you can tap the screen and set separate focus and exposure points. I also like the Panadonic D-range that has a Leica lens, I think it would suit you well. It's what I used when I was travelling and I'm still really pleased with the pictures it took. Leica makes really sweet lenses and it makes a huge difference. Quals: BFA in photography

They're point and shoots with excellent lenses, good flash, and full automatic and manual controls. This will let you control low light shots a bit more. It's worth learning his ow to control aperture (f-stop), shutter speed, and "film speed". Memail me if you have questions.

There's no smartphone camera that can break the laws of physics. Even an iPhone 6 Plus will struggle under low light conditions. I recently went through the same thought exercise, and most people seem to settle on Canon Powershot s100/s110/s120 or if you've got the funds a Sony RX100 Mk 1/2/3. I picked up a used s100 for ~$100 on ebay and it easily takes better low light photos than any smartphone or tablet in my house (including an iPad Mini Retina). Keep in mind that low light is tough. Good photos in those conditions basically boil down to your ability to manage the optical settings to capture (or add via flash) the appropriate amount of light on your subject. Point and shoots struggle with that, so that's why I'm suggesting compacts that have full manual control so you can control things like aperture in addition to flash/no flash. There are people who don't want to know anything about camera settings, though, in which case your best bet is probably something like an iPhone 6 plus or a point and shoot equivalent specifically catering to the snapshots at the bar crowd.

I use an iPhone and a Canon 5d Mk II with fast prime lenses. Nothing inbetween makes any sense to me.

I use a Sony Cybershot dsc-wx9. tagged photos on flickr https://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/dsc-wx9/

The requirement of being able to take a picture of a person in front of a dimly lit skyline is almost impossible to meet, simply because the dynamic range you'd be trying to capture is too great. You have to really overexpose the person to try to get enough detail in the skyline, and then adjust the photo in an editing program (e.g. Photoshop) to turn down the highlights and extract detail from the shadows, and such a photo is likely to look like you adjusted it. BTW part of your problem is that http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm#sensitivity. What you see just can't be replicated by a compact camera. Even tossing that aside, you're bumping up against both physics and marketing. A larger sensor has better light gathering ability than a smaller one, but requires a bigger lens. Getting all of that into a compact(ish) camera is both difficult and, well, an opportunity for a manufacturer to sell you a premium product. The three cameras I'd look at to solve the bulk of your problem are the Sony RX-100 series (which is up to version III now), the Canon G7X, and the Panasonic LX100 (and here's a http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/10/21/sony-rx100-iii-vs-canon-g7x-vs-panasonic-lx100-which-is-the-best-compact-ca) … but they're all $700 and up, and none of them has a 5X zoom. The Panasonic has the largest sensor and thus the most light gathering ability and it would be the one I personally would consider most seriously, but it's the most expensive of the three; the Canon comes the closest to 5X on the zoom at 4.2X; Sony is the category leader, provides more help to casual users, and you can still get the previous models at a markdown, so they're worth looking at too. Other than those, in general a $300 camera has to give up a lot of what those three cameras offer, worst of all the sensor size, which is going to severely handicap the camera's ability to shoot in low light without a flash. Newer sensors have better dynamic range than your camera does, but I wonder how much of an upgrade you'd really notice without moving to a camera with a larger sensor. I guess the first thing I'd do in your situation is take a class to make sure you know what settings you should be using (or changing) in various situations, and then go from there. I would have expected better results from a camera with IS than what you're describing, and I wouldn't want to recommend a camera with lots of manual controls only to have them frustrate you just as much as your current camera does.