Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any pocketable digicams with little noise at ISO 400 or ab..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 1:22:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a compact or ultracompact (preferably) that has low
noise at ISO 400 and preferably above. Noise Ninja can remove low t
moderate noise to my satisfaction, but I really need to avoid using a
flash.

The Finepix Z1 was my first choice but after looking into it, decided
"no good."

Is there such a camera out there or should I just wait six months?

Ronald Johnson
June 24, 2005 1:22:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fuji Finepix F-10 is the best so far - little noise at ISO 400 and
acceptable at ISO 800. The Fuji uses their "SuperCCD HR" technology,
which is quite different from the standard Bayer sensor; it's got it's
own set of problems (purple fringing, poor dynamic range) but in the
F-10 it appears to be a winner.

I'm hoping, now that the 400 ISO barrier has been broken, that more
manufacturers are going to try to produce cameras to compete on ISO and
noise, but it may be very difficult with standard CCD technology -
they've been pushing megapixels, not lower noise, higher ISO. Frankly,
I've seen images from a 5 year old 2 mpixel sensor that rival the
output from a good new 7 mpixel camera - see this recent thread on DP
Review:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&m...

The Olympus C-2100 UZ ("Uzi") is a classic camera, probably better than
most of that era, but the Oly C-7070 is supposed to be one of the best
(image quality wise) of the recent 7 Mpixel cameras. Oh well, I
digress.... sorry. Right now, the camera you're looking for is the Fuji
F-10.

ECM
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 2:11:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 24 Jun 2005 07:39:22 -0700, "ecm" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote:

>Fuji Finepix F-10 is the best so far - little noise at ISO 400 and
>acceptable at ISO 800. The Fuji uses their "SuperCCD HR" technology,
>which is quite different from the standard Bayer sensor; it's got it's
>own set of problems (purple fringing, poor dynamic range) but in the
>F-10 it appears to be a winner.
>
>I'm hoping, now that the 400 ISO barrier has been broken, that more
>manufacturers are going to try to produce cameras to compete on ISO and
>noise, but it may be very difficult with standard CCD technology -
>they've been pushing megapixels, not lower noise, higher ISO. Frankly,
>I've seen images from a 5 year old 2 mpixel sensor that rival the
>output from a good new 7 mpixel camera - see this recent thread on DP
>Review:
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&m...
>
>The Olympus C-2100 UZ ("Uzi") is a classic camera, probably better than
>most of that era, but the Oly C-7070 is supposed to be one of the best
>(image quality wise) of the recent 7 Mpixel cameras. Oh well, I
>digress.... sorry. Right now, the camera you're looking for is the Fuji
>F-10.
>

Not as long as they have small sensors. Small Sensor = Noise.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.htm...


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 2:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2005 07:39:22 -0700, "ecm" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> >Fuji Finepix F-10 is the best so far - little noise at ISO 400 and
> >acceptable at ISO 800. The Fuji uses their "SuperCCD HR" technology,
> >which is quite different from the standard Bayer sensor; it's got it's
> >own set of problems (purple fringing, poor dynamic range) but in the
> >F-10 it appears to be a winner.
> >
> >I'm hoping, now that the 400 ISO barrier has been broken, that more
> >manufacturers are going to try to produce cameras to compete on ISO and
> >noise, but it may be very difficult with standard CCD technology -
> >they've been pushing megapixels, not lower noise, higher ISO. Frankly,
> >I've seen images from a 5 year old 2 mpixel sensor that rival the
> >output from a good new 7 mpixel camera - see this recent thread on DP
> >Review:
> >
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&m...
> >
> >The Olympus C-2100 UZ ("Uzi") is a classic camera, probably better than
> >most of that era, but the Oly C-7070 is supposed to be one of the best
> >(image quality wise) of the recent 7 Mpixel cameras. Oh well, I
> >digress.... sorry. Right now, the camera you're looking for is the Fuji
> >F-10.
> >
>
> Not as long as they have small sensors. Small Sensor = Noise.
>
You might want to look at this page before making a blanket statment
like that.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page8.a...
June 24, 2005 4:32:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2005 07:39:22 -0700, "ecm" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote:
>
SNIP
> > ....Right now, the camera you're looking for is the Fuji
> >F-10.
> >
>
> Not as long as they have small sensors. Small Sensor = Noise.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
>
> http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.htm...
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

It's true that in general smaller sensors are noiser, but the F-10
seems to be different. The sample images on DP Review and Imaging
Resource are impressive; you should check it out:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/page5.a...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F10/F10PICS.HTM

Like I said before, I'm really hoping this'll sting the other
manufacturers into paying attention to image quality, ISO and noise,
rather than megapixels.....

ECM
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stewy wrote:
> In article <s22ob1draul5kq3bp6v0lm07il38r1srm7@4ax.com>,
> Ron Johnson <RonJohnsn@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm looking for a compact or ultracompact (preferably) that has low
> > noise at ISO 400 and preferably above. Noise Ninja can remove low t
> > moderate noise to my satisfaction, but I really need to avoid using a
> > flash.
> >
> > The Finepix Z1 was my first choice but after looking into it, decided
> > "no good."
> >
> > Is there such a camera out there or should I just wait six months?
> >
> I'd recommend giving up completely the idea of digital if you're that
> worried, why not give that old 35mm P&S a new lease of life?
>
> Barring that instead of just reading others comments about noise, why
> not ask real people about real cameras they own, not these flakes who
> parrot heresay in an attempt to explain (justify) why they feel they've
> wasted money/spent money wisely.
Is pointing him to a review parroting heresay?

> Noise is a fact of life - a small sensor will generate more noise.
This seems to be the common believe, but I will refer, once again, to
this review
http://www.dpreview.com/review­s/fujifilmf10zoom/page8.asp
Do you believe the photos here are fake?

> Most people don't know what 'noise' looks like.
Got to just about any review and there will be test photos at different
iso setting, looking at these you see noise at high setting, just what
is so hard about knowing what noise looks like?

Scott
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 1:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <s22ob1draul5kq3bp6v0lm07il38r1srm7@4ax.com>,
Ron Johnson <RonJohnsn@nospam.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm looking for a compact or ultracompact (preferably) that has low
> noise at ISO 400 and preferably above. Noise Ninja can remove low t
> moderate noise to my satisfaction, but I really need to avoid using a
> flash.
>
> The Finepix Z1 was my first choice but after looking into it, decided
> "no good."
>
> Is there such a camera out there or should I just wait six months?
>
I'd recommend giving up completely the idea of digital if you're that
worried, why not give that old 35mm P&S a new lease of life?

Barring that instead of just reading others comments about noise, why
not ask real people about real cameras they own, not these flakes who
parrot heresay in an attempt to explain (justify) why they feel they've
wasted money/spent money wisely.

Noise is a fact of life - a small sensor will generate more noise.

Most people don't know what 'noise' looks like.

The pros of digital outweigh the cons.

PS I've just bought my second Fuji F440 and have built a fine stereo
camera. In addition to my adventures in InfraRed picture taking and
fiddling around with pictures in Photoshop, digital has breathed life
into a hobby that was fast becoming stale.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:01:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stewy wrote:

> Ask 5 photographers and you'll probably get 3 different answers - try it!
>
> Most reviews are comparing one camera over another and that's not useful
> after you've bought it. It's only useful in placing a monetary value on
> objective technology but is basically bound by a subjective comparison.
>
> Individual reviews by purchasers would be a better bet I feel, as they
> are not comparing the camera with anything else only their own feelings
> of 'Does it do what I expected it to do?' 'Am I happy/so so/unhappy with
> the results?' 'If I had known what I know now, would I have bought this
> camera?'

Well I have to disagree, I think the reviews are of great help in
choosing a camera. I think the sample photos are also a great help, I
also have used PBase.com for looking at photos from cameras that I was
interesting in, it gives you are good feel for what kind of photos you
can get.

Scott
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:08:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matthew Nettle wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:47:23 +0100, Stewy wrote
> (in article <anyone4tennis-F93CD2.09472325062005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>):
>
> >[...]
> > I'd recommend giving up completely the idea of digital if you're that
> > worried, why not give that old 35mm P&S a new lease of life?
>
> Good point. Fuji 800 and scan the negs.
>
And can you point us to a photo that was scanned from Fuji 800 that
comes close to photos off of the fuji F10?

I don't see what the big deal is, he asked if there was a compact
digital camera that could shoot with low noise at ISO 400, there is.

Scott
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 1:00:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:47:23 +0100, Stewy wrote
(in article <anyone4tennis-F93CD2.09472325062005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>):

>[...]
> I'd recommend giving up completely the idea of digital if you're that
> worried, why not give that old 35mm P&S a new lease of life?

Good point. Fuji 800 and scan the negs.


M.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:47:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1119665222.401360.116700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Stewy wrote:
> > In article <s22ob1draul5kq3bp6v0lm07il38r1srm7@4ax.com>,
> > Ron Johnson <RonJohnsn@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
<snipped for brevity>
> >
> > Barring that instead of just reading others comments about noise, why
> > not ask real people about real cameras they own, not these flakes who
> > parrot heresay in an attempt to explain (justify) why they feel they've
> > wasted money/spent money wisely.
> Is pointing him to a review parroting heresay?

Yes and no - See below
>
> > Noise is a fact of life - a small sensor will generate more noise.
> This seems to be the common believe, but I will refer, once again, to
> this review
> http://www.dpreview.com/review­s/fujifilmf10zoom/page8.asp
> Do you believe the photos here are fake?
>
> > Most people don't know what 'noise' looks like.
> Got to just about any review and there will be test photos at different
> iso setting, looking at these you see noise at high setting, just what
> is so hard about knowing what noise looks like?
>

Ask 5 photographers and you'll probably get 3 different answers - try it!

Most reviews are comparing one camera over another and that's not useful
after you've bought it. It's only useful in placing a monetary value on
objective technology but is basically bound by a subjective comparison.

Individual reviews by purchasers would be a better bet I feel, as they
are not comparing the camera with anything else only their own feelings
of 'Does it do what I expected it to do?' 'Am I happy/so so/unhappy with
the results?' 'If I had known what I know now, would I have bought this
camera?'
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 10:03:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:08:04 +0100, Scott W wrote
(in article <1119730084.656891.188360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
> And can you point us to a photo that was scanned from Fuji 800 that
> comes close to photos off of the fuji F10?

I don't think I can be bothered, to be honest. Anyone with any pre-didge
experience knows what it does, and there are plenty of examples in press
photos from a few years ago.
You sound a tad stroppy to me, I've no idea why. Perhaps I misread you, and
you are actually a model of human reasonableness.
I did enjoy your typo
"for looking at photos from cameras that I was
interesting in"
btw :-)
>
> I don't see what the big deal is, he asked if there was a compact
> digital camera that could shoot with low noise at ISO 400, there is.

I seconded what seemed like a helpful thought for low light photography. I
thought the photo was the important thing, and an extra stop can be very
useful however it might be obtained.

For the o.p., I pushed the 800 an extra stop a couple of times, and would
probably go that way again to get around a flash ban. It'd be worth a test
roll anyway, then you'd know if it suited your purpose.

M.
!