 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / March 2007ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712
Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA batteries, this small camera will be the one I will want. DPReview paid our attention at the extreme sensitivity of the camera, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030705kodakpma.asp 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. > Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with > the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. Welcome to yesterday.... Kinga 202 > 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. Well, if you lower your standards enough you can get as high as you want. For example, the D200 at ISO 400000: http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/74719850 (this is suboptimal, you could make it better). In fact I have some shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of redefining "acceptable image". Seriously, it is rather unlikely that that kodak can get anything useful above, say, ISO 400 (well for some definition of useful; for others, it'll be useless by ISO 200, or 800, or whatever). People keep going on about how the Fuji f30 is great at high ISOs, better than any other compact etc, but looking at samples on dpreview the results at eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at this: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifinepixf30_samples/originals/dscf0734.jpg 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of > redefining "acceptable image". I am curious how you were able to make such a high (400000) ISO when the camera allows only 1600 ? >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of >> redefining "acceptable image". Here's the 5D at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600 http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original The 3200 image (downsampled to 6MP) looks like this. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359352/large > 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. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > The 3200 image (downsampled to 6MP) looks like this. > > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359352/large That is the main difference between the canons and the other CCD cameras the 3200 image from the 5D is comparable (to me) to the 1600 from the D200, so about 1 stop. But pushing it higher (6400, 12800 etc) the D200 goes downhill faster (I have a series in full stops above 1600, they deteriorate rapidly above 6400). >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am curious how you were able to make such a high (400000) ISO when > the camera allows only 1600 ? The usual method is to simply use manual and underexpose, then bring it up to normal exposure in editing.  SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at >this: >http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifinepixf30_samples/originals/dscf0734.jpg >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. > >eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at > >this: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 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. >>> eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at >>> this: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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. Roger On Mar 9, 4:18 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote: > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ISOs (than ISO 100) with post processing. Thus all cameras have > digital ISO with post processing. Well that is what I said and demonstrated earlier in this thread (and so did DJL). But anyway the important point to this thread is, I believe, that it is fairly easy to guess that the results will be rubbish without ever thinking about unity gain ISO and so on (simply by looking at comparable sensors' output with 4 stops more light and extrapolating; metrics such as unity gain ISO are just ways of succintly expressing aspects of the same thing). [] > 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. [] > Roger Just a typo, I think. David >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. J. > Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with > the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. >> Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with >> the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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). >>> Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with >>> the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >sensor would record anything besides noise at ISO 8000 (when used at normal >temperatures). A number of years ago I was able to extract a recognisable image that was 8 stops under exposed using a camera with an similar size sensor. This would have been at ISO 24000 (if I did my mental math correctly) And since I was using jpeg data, no noise reduction and only the levels command in photoshop, I suspect that with raw data and a noise reduction package like Noise Ninja most halfway decent P&S could be pushed up to around ISO 8000 jpc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.