Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 28, 2006, 4:49 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

You may be rifgt then En...But I really wonder if it is that way or does MT have a lens adapter for an 850 and trying it on a 880? You have a 880 and others here. The only way to tell is to try it.



Dawg.
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2006, 5:05 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Yeah. I lan on getting an adapter for the tele lens-- maybe. Then we would know. Actually.. I think Nick has the adapter...
Quote:
You may be rifgt then En...But I really wonder if it is that way or does MT have a lens adapter for an 850 and trying it on a 880? You have a 880 and others here. The only way to tell is to try it.



Dawg.
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2006, 5:14 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

I know that B&H has two different adapters and bills one as for the P series and the other specifically for the P880. I wonder how many got the wrong one? Or what the diff is??



Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2006, 5:17 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

Also look again at the image MT posted and tell me it wasn't shot from the left side a little. Looks like looking through a porthole while standing to the left side. Just doesn't look right somehow!



Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2006, 4:21 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Default

Thanks for the advice regarding TCONs. I kinda figured the Ebay cheap stuff is junk. I've gone ahead and picked up the set of filters (UV, Polarizer and Macro) from Ritz and so so good (with the UV and Macro).

However I still think it would've been nice to have had the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and higher res. Yes the images show more grain at 800 and 1600, but the option should've been made to allow at least 3.1 MP. With a .8MP image you're very limited to apply any editing touch-ups. I've seen so decent images at ISO 1600 from my brother-in-laws Nikon D70 in low light without flash.



Also does anyone know what's next in the hopper from KODAK?
lakerstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2006, 5:09 PM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
I've seen so decent images at ISO 1600 from my brother-in-laws Nikon D70 in low light without flash.
Yes, but it's got a much larger sensor, too. So, the photosites for each pixel have more surface area and generate a stronger signal, requiring less amplification for equivalent ISO speed sensitivity.

There are some tricks you can use to get faster shutter speeds if really needed and you can't use a flash or tripod.

I wouldn't recommend it except in an emergency (for example, ET visited and your flash broke). ;-)

But, you could simulate higher ISO speeds by deliberately underexposing and brightening the images later.

In low light, the camera would be using the largest available aperture (smallest f/stop number) available anyway in most modes.

So, if you used a -1.0 EV Setting with Exposure Compensation at ISO 400, your shutter speeds would be the same as using ISO 800. If you underexposed 2 stops (-2.0 EV Setting), your shutter speeds would be the same as if you were using an ISO 1600 setting. You wouldn't have to use full stop increments. You'd need to look at your model to see. But, most models allow adjustment of Exposure Compensation in either 0.3 or 0.5 EV increments.

Then, you'd need to brighten the images using software to make up for the underexposed (darker) images. The Fill Light feature you'll find in some editors is good for that purpose. If your editor has a gamma slider, try it. Sometimes you'll get better results versus just using a brightness setting.

But, noise will be higher using this technique, just as if your camera had a higher ISO speed setting available. Dynamic Range also suffers using this technique.

Your best bet is to use a flash intead if flash is allowed. Or, better yet, use slower shutter speeds with a a tripod if shooting non-stationary subjects and just leave your camera set to lower ISO speeds.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:47 PM.