what does the equivalent in "Equivalent to ISO 100" in the camera's spec mean? I just got a fujifilm finepix 2600z and i love the quality of the picture it gave me. But for night shots, the pictures are pretty crappy. what the hell is fujifilm thinking? making a camera with such a low ISO. This iso rating does not just exist in the 2600z, it exists in some later models too. Pretty soon they are going to release the 2650z, a update version of the 2600z. i checked out the specs, and the ISO is still at "Equivalent to ISO 100" what the hell......
ISO on digital cameras
- Thread starter Omegachi
- Start date
Hi. ISO 100 equivelency is more or less standard for digital cameras. Most, however have a setting that will let you adjust that upwards, at a cost of fidelity. That said, its just one of the compromises a digital photographer must make, similar to the very narrow exposure latitude (distance from ideal that exposure settings can be) as compared to any print film.
Peace,
will
Peace,
will
but iso equivalent to 100 is horrible at night. can't even take a normal picture in a place with indoor nights. ie, mall, street, etc. they should at least turn it up a little to get it as close to normal nighting as possible. so now my camera is considered as a day time cam.
FWIW, I am a novice photographer, but I have a comprehensive knowledge of CMOS and CCD digital imaging sensors. So even if I don't know how to take pictures very well, I understand very well how CCD's work.
ISO refers to the speed of the exposure of the film - higher numbers indicate faster film. There's a simplified explanation here. In the traditional camera world, you adjust your film ISO to the type of picture you are taking. If you are taking high-speed outdoor shots (like of athletes at an event), you'd want a high ISO film - like 600 or 800 - in order to avoid blurring (due to the film being slower than the action you are taking). But traditionally higher ISO films are more grainy than lower ISO films. So if you wanted a detailed shot - for example for a portrait - you'd use lower ISO film - like 50 or 100. This is less true nowadays than it used to be with the new film manufacturing techniques, but it still has some basis in reality.
In the case of digital cameras, they have fairly low response to light - particularly the smaller ones with the tiny lenses that don't let in much light, like, as a prime example, my Canon S110. It doesn't have to be this way (CCD's in telescopes are fairly light-sensitive) but the alternative is a lot more pixel noise (so you can get a faster response, but you just get more garbage in the image). The camera manufacturers have avoided the garbage problem, by setting the light sensitivity fairly low. Digital cameras compensate for this relatively low sensitivity to light levels by leaving the shutter open longer (to gather more light) but if anything moves (the hand holding the camera, the thing being photographed, etc.) the image blurs. I find that my Canon S110 takes great shots at night... with a tripod and a warning to the participants not to move. In fact you can take brighter pictures than the light levels outside would indicate (ie. a picture taken under a full moon looks more like one taken just after sunset), but you have to leave the shutter open even longer.
Back to my earlier cryptic comment, CMOS sensors have a smaller light-gathering-area per pixel, so they are even less sensitive than CCD's. But looking at the specs for the 2600z, it's a CCD, so that's not the problem. What's the f/stop rating of the lens?
ISO refers to the speed of the exposure of the film - higher numbers indicate faster film. There's a simplified explanation here. In the traditional camera world, you adjust your film ISO to the type of picture you are taking. If you are taking high-speed outdoor shots (like of athletes at an event), you'd want a high ISO film - like 600 or 800 - in order to avoid blurring (due to the film being slower than the action you are taking). But traditionally higher ISO films are more grainy than lower ISO films. So if you wanted a detailed shot - for example for a portrait - you'd use lower ISO film - like 50 or 100. This is less true nowadays than it used to be with the new film manufacturing techniques, but it still has some basis in reality.
In the case of digital cameras, they have fairly low response to light - particularly the smaller ones with the tiny lenses that don't let in much light, like, as a prime example, my Canon S110. It doesn't have to be this way (CCD's in telescopes are fairly light-sensitive) but the alternative is a lot more pixel noise (so you can get a faster response, but you just get more garbage in the image). The camera manufacturers have avoided the garbage problem, by setting the light sensitivity fairly low. Digital cameras compensate for this relatively low sensitivity to light levels by leaving the shutter open longer (to gather more light) but if anything moves (the hand holding the camera, the thing being photographed, etc.) the image blurs. I find that my Canon S110 takes great shots at night... with a tripod and a warning to the participants not to move. In fact you can take brighter pictures than the light levels outside would indicate (ie. a picture taken under a full moon looks more like one taken just after sunset), but you have to leave the shutter open even longer.
Back to my earlier cryptic comment, CMOS sensors have a smaller light-gathering-area per pixel, so they are even less sensitive than CCD's. But looking at the specs for the 2600z, it's a CCD, so that's not the problem. What's the f/stop rating of the lens?
As a semi-pro photographer (film mostly), I would like to point out that (IMHO) you are looking at a problem in the wrong manner. Low light sensitivity is an attribute of digital cameras, just as it is an attribute of most slide films. Also compounding your problem, is the fact that the lens on your camera is actually fairly slow. This means that it lets in a relativly small amount of light, especially when zoomed in. At full zoom, you have an F/stop of 8.7, slow enough that taking pictures with a film camera would be difficult. The difference between ISO 100 and 200 is a factor of 2. Similarly, the difference between f/8 (rounding your 8.7 down) and f/3.5 (your lens speed at its widest zoom) is a factor of roughly 6. If you really need to take pictures at night you have a few choices. First, shoot only with the lens at its widest position, this will provide 6 times more light to the CCD. Second, use the flash, however, that flash is probably only good out to maybe 10-15 feet, so be careful, also the flash is useless closer than about 3 feet. Your third choice would be to buy a bigger, external flash, but I can't tell (I actually doubt) that your camera supports one. Fourth option is to look around in your camera's settings and force a longer shutter speed (you should be able to do this). However, this will cause problems with your subjects moving and with camera shake. Your problem is much more one of optics and laws of Physics than one of fujifilm's poor planning. I strongly reccomend you head to your local library and pick up a Photography for Dummies style book, some kind of quick premer in photography (doesn't need to be about digial cameras) so you can understand the basic principles at work. Good Luck
Peace,
will
Peace,
will
hmm.... i think it is fuji's problem. i've seen and used some other cameras, and at around the same spec as my camera, their light senitivity is better, producing a better image at night. The camera i have is one of the worse digi cam that can be used at night comparing to the other ones i've used.
Are you playing around with the camera settings, or just using it as a point and shoot camera in its default mode? By adjusting the shutter speed and other settings, you might be able to produce a better picture. If you're using it without adjusting anything, don't be too quick to blame it on the camera. My Nikon Coolpix 2500 for example, has different "scene modes" that have various settings, including ISO, shutter speed, flash and other settings I can't remember. If I take a night scenery picture in say the Macro/Closeup mode, obviously the results aren't gonna be good. That's an extreme situation, but you get the picture(pun intended) 
yes, i did play with the settings. I am not a dummy at digi cams. i have the slow shutter setting, when that is on, still not much light goes into the camera, but its more than normal. And at that setting, thing gets really blurry, so i usually have to find something to put my camera on.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter