I am curious how you were able to make such a high (400000) ISO when
the camera allows only 1600 ?
Use manual mode and underexpose. Since handholding at 1/20 is hard at 75mm, I turned on more room lights for the ISO 3200 image, but the 6,400 image was f/5.6 and 1/40, the 12,800 was f/5.6 at 1/90, and the 25,600 was f/5.6 at 1/180.
But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
I think detailed information will reveal that the full 8000 ISO is not available at full resolution. The 'Z' series does not shoot 'raw' either. I'd suggest you look at the 'P' series - IS; raw,tiff,jpeg; full manual mode. There are some good prices at the online store.
But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
I think detailed information will reveal that the full 8000 ISO is not
available at full resolution. The 'Z' series does not shoot 'raw' either.
I'd suggest you look at the 'P' series - IS; raw,tiff,jpeg; full manual
mode. There are some good prices at the online store.
Neither do I. Kodak's own web site states a high sensitivity mode is available with 3200 ISO at reduced resolution (1.2 MPixels). Due to the laws of physics, it is highly unkilely that a camera with a 1/2.5" 7 MPixel sensor would record anything besides noise at ISO 8000 (when used at normal temperatures).
Most people like this thing, but when I look at it, I just see a total
lack of texture and extremely obvious signs of heavy noise reduction.
You'd rather trust the image stabilization to take the shot at ISO
100? May be fine as long as nothing moves.
It's nice to have the choice. After all, I might be taking some snaps
to put online at 320 pixels and compressed as heck.
J.
Did I say that ISO 400 or 8000 should not be there? I was just
pointing out that, given that this F30 camera is supposed to be much
better than other compacts at this sort of thing, and given that its
image quality is what it is at ISO 400, it is rather unlikely that
anything pretty will come out of the kodak at 4 stops less exposure.
This claim of ISO 8000 is nothing more than "digital ISO." a 1/2.5" sensor at 7 megapixels is about 1.9 micron pixel pitch. That performance is at the bottom of the graph in Figure 6 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary The "unity gain ISO" is the A/D bit level where 1 bit = 1 electron. For a 12-bit converter, and 1.9 micron pixels, unity gain ISO is at best ISO 100 and probably lower. Any ISO above that is essentially digital ISO. You can achieve higher effective ISOs (than ISO 100) with post processing. Thus all cameras have digital ISO with post processing.
On 9 Mar 2007 05:54:40 -0800, "acl" <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Did I say that ISO 400 or 8000 should not be there? I was just
pointing out that, given that this F30 camera is supposed to be much
better than other compacts at this sort of thing, and given that its
image quality is what it is at ISO 400, it is rather unlikely that
anything pretty will come out of the kodak at 4 stops less exposure.
Well OK.
Back in the ancient days of film, you were free to push film speeds, knowing what would result. I think it's a good thing if you can do the same with digital, keep the auto features running with a bogus ISO setting. Your point about quality is well taken.
My first (and so far only) digital camera had an effective ISO of about 50 and no way to override, so I'm eager for better real sensitivity and any workable overrides.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
