Any pocketable digicams with little noise at ISO 400 or above?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Johnson, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. Ron Johnson

    Ron Johnson Guest

    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
     
    Ron Johnson, Jun 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron Johnson

    ecm Guest

    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&message=13993828

    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
     
    ecm, Jun 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 24 Jun 2005 07:39:22 -0700, "ecm" <> 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&message=13993828
    >
    >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.html


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

    "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/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jun 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Ron Johnson

    Scott W Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On 24 Jun 2005 07:39:22 -0700, "ecm" <> 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&message=13993828
    > >
    > >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.asp
     
    Scott W, Jun 24, 2005
    #4
  5. Ron Johnson

    ecm Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On 24 Jun 2005 07:39:22 -0700, "ecm" <> 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.html
    >
    > -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.asp
    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
     
    ecm, Jun 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Ron Johnson

    Stewy Guest

    In article <>,
    Ron Johnson <> 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.
     
    Stewy, Jun 25, 2005
    #6
  7. Ron Johnson

    Scott W Guest

    Stewy wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Ron Johnson <> 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
     
    Scott W, Jun 25, 2005
    #7
  8. Ron Johnson

    SteveB Guest

    SteveB, Jun 25, 2005
    #8
  9. Ron Johnson

    Stewy Guest

    In article <>,
    "Scott W" <> wrote:

    > Stewy wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Ron Johnson <> 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?'
     
    Stewy, Jun 25, 2005
    #9
  10. Ron Johnson

    Scott W Guest

    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
     
    Scott W, Jun 25, 2005
    #10
  11. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:47:23 +0100, Stewy wrote
    (in article <>):

    >[...]
    > 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.
     
    Matthew Nettle, Jun 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Ron Johnson

    Scott W Guest

    Matthew Nettle wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:47:23 +0100, Stewy wrote
    > (in article <>):
    >
    > >[...]
    > > 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
     
    Scott W, Jun 25, 2005
    #12
  13. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:08:04 +0100, Scott W wrote
    (in article <>):

    >
    >
    >
    > 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.
     
    Matthew Nettle, Jun 28, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Darkness

    Anyone have Sony 828 pictures ABOVE ISO 64?

    The Darkness, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    322
  2. Veggie
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    990
    Bart van der Wolf
    Aug 23, 2004
  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    D70 ISO 200 Noise vs EOS 300D ISO 100

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    429
  4. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    529
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
  5. The Original Spudnik

    Any digicams any good at ISO 3200?

    The Original Spudnik, Nov 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    524
    Mark²
    Nov 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page