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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 20, 2009, 4:38 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Default

Hi,

I would like to know about this function on the Z1012.
My question is about the programmable time of the aperture.
Can I set about 15/30 sec. ?

If there's not this feature, how can I shot the moon, or a night panorama ?

Thanks for you help, and excuse if my question is too much newbie.
KodakZUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 20, 2009, 5:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Do you have a Z1012? If so, it's easy to find the answer by experiment.

I just switched mine on, set it to Shutter priority mode, and it allowed me to set up to 16 seconds exposure time, and down to 1/1000s. However, if you're in that mode, and pointing at a night sky, the aperture will automatically be as wide open as it will go, f/2.8-4.8, and the only control you have over the aperture is the EV control, which won't shift it if you're pointing at a mostly dark sky.

If you set Aperture priority, you can set any aperture you like over the full range, but the maximum exposure time offered is 0.5 seconds, and you'll get an automaticshutter speed offering.

If you set to Manual, you can set any aperture you like, and any exposure time from 1/1000s to 16s. With a cap on the lens, 1/1000s at f/7.1 shows an EV correction of -18.8, which is presumably what the metering software thinks is minus infinity.

I got quite good results with my Z712 last June, on Manual, and you can see them at...
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=85

There are many other moon photos if you search the 'Biweekly Shootout' forum's 'Shooting the Moon' Challenge around that date, and there have been a couple of threads elsewhere in these forums about Moon photography in the last week or so.

Note that the Moon is a brightly sunlit object; it's not night photography, really, it's like photographing something reflective in sunlight sitting in the middle of a black card a few feet away. The problem on the Z712 & Z1012 is that it's very small, and at or beyond the limits of what the camera can do, depending on how perfectionist you are.

I tried to shoot the moon with my Z1012 a few nights ago, with much less success. Most of my shots were shaky or out of focus; not sure why. I attach the best effort from then. I'm sure I could do better, but the Z712 has a slightly longer focal length than the Z1012.

This is a pixel for pixel crop from the middle of the full frame, sharpened in PaintShopPro.

Good luck!

EASYSHARE Z1012 IS Digital Camera
09 January 2009 17:39:31
Exposure program: Manual
Exposure mode: Manual
Exposure bias [EV]: 0.0
Focal length [mm]: 70.2
35mm focal length [mm]: 396
ISO value: 64
Shutter speed [s]: 1/256
Aperture: F5.7


Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2009, 6:03 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Here's a slightly better one, at 1/1000s, f5.7, cropped straight from the camera, unsharpened...
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2009, 8:21 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Default

Thanks Alan T for your answer.
No, I haven't yet
I've seen the TZ5 that have night panorama with possibility to set 15 and 30 sec for optimal night photos.
So, if the moon isn't a 'night photo' if I want to shot a panorama or buildings at sunset and at night, are 16s enought ?


KodakZUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2009, 11:58 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

KodakZUser wrote:
Quote:
.....if I want to shot a panorama or buildings at sunset and at night, are 16s enought ?
Well, it depends on how bright they are, of course, and on which parts of the subject are important to you.

If you look at Sarah Joyce's (mtclimber) thread at...

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=18

...she is very enthusiastic about its 'sunset' scene mode. Sadly Kodak don't tell us in any of their literature what the various 'scene modes' areactually doing , so we don't know how clever it is; we'd have to take lots of pictures and analyse the results to findout.

But you don't necessarily need 'scene modes'. The only one I use on both the Z712 and the Z1012 is the 'panorama mode', and even on that I have to fool the exposure meter by pointing at the sky while half-pressing the button.

I took the shot below not long after getting my Z1012, by setting a modest aperture (f/5.1) in aperture priority mode, and twiddling the EV up and down until the sky tone looked right in the electronic viewfinder. EV of -2.0 turned out to be right. This resulted in an image looking just as I expected. If it had been too light, I could have reduced the aperture, or switched to manual mode and given less time, or turned the ISO down to 64.

The Z1012 is pretty good at high ISO (sensitivity) as well, so your maximum exposure would be 16s at maximum aperture at whatever ISO you can tolerate (images get noisier as you go higher). This is quite a lot.

But if this type of shot, and astronomy,are really important to you, these cameras are not the proper tools to use. As with any specialised requirement, you'll have to spend more money on a better camera and lenses if you want to do it properly. But the Z-series superzooms are excellent tools for learning just what you will want in a better camera. Just don't expect them to perform miracles. And the photographer needs to learn how to get the best out of any camera.

Exposure program: Aperture priority
Exposure bias [EV]: -2.0
35mm focal length [mm]: 33
ISO value: 100
Shutter speed [s]: 1/64
Aperture: F5.1
Subj. distance range: Unknown
Metering mode: Center weighted average

Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2009, 3:30 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Default

I don't want to use this camera to shot astronomy object.
Photos from Sarah Joyce and your photos are exactly what I would like to shot.
It's very important that the colors are more natural than possible for me.
Maybe that I can shot some museum at night (external) or some important building.
Usually this scene are illuminated by strong lights.

I know the noise at higher iso, but this noise is annoying from 800/1600 , or is already present from 200/400 iso ?
KodakZUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2009, 3:57 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

KodakZUser wrote:
Quote:
...I know the noise at higher iso, but this noise is annoying from 800/1600 , or is already present from 200/400 iso ?
I suggest you readSteve's review, carefully, as advertised in a 'sticky' at the head of this very forum, where there are sample pictures at each ISO setting...

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_...s_samples.html

Download the images and view them at full size, don't just look at them at the size shown on your monitor. Then you can judge for yourself. Only you can tell what level of noise is tolerable - it depends on your taste and the intended use for the images.

Excellent noise reduction software is available, should you ever need it.

Better still, visit a store, if you can, and get your hands on the real thing. A good store will let you try it out, especially if you take along an SD card of your own, from which you can analyse the images at leisure. I bought mine online only because my friendly local camera shop decided to stock the Z1015 instead.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2009, 5:05 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Default

Alan T you are a very good 'friend'.
You are right, all depend on our taste. But we know that this camera is considered a 'compat', so we and I cannot expect a shot by a reflex.
I read your comment about z1015 vs z1012 and this is your opinion, but not at all.
There are more other person that consider z1012 more usable that z1015.
So if we can give the correct position of this camera and we aren't professional photographer, I think that an impartial comment about a camera is the best job especially for me that I'm a newbie.
I see the shot at higher iso, and I can say that the noise is present and the shot isn't very good. But for the price that I pay and for my first super zoom digital camera I think that is the best choice.
I was pending about this camera and TZ5 (panasonic).
I have choose Z1012 because there are manual command that aren't present in panasonic. I know that TZ5 are more compact, but I would like to learn to shot, so I belive that if I can set some settings I can learn something more than all automatic.

Excuse me for my english.
KodakZUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 1:42 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 75
Default

One comment about noise. It all depends on how you view the image - on the PC monitor or on a hardcopy of X by Y inches.

I have found it quite meaningless to view on the PC monitor an image in its original size (i.e. needing to scroll up/down and left/right) to examine pixel by pixel and to see whether it is noisy or not.

As long as the image looks OK (noise-wise) when it is in full view on a monitor (no need to scroll up/down or left/right) or print as a 4x6 inches hardcopy, I am happy with its noise content.

At the end the day, the success of an image depends more on the composition, colors, tones, moods etc than on whether it is noise free or not.

Have fun!


dancheng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2009, 4:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

dancheng wrote:
Quote:
..As long as the image looks OK (noise-wise) when it is in full view on a monitor (no need to scroll up/down or left/right) or print as a 4x6 inches hardcopy, I am happy with its noise content.

At the end the day, the success of an image depends more on the composition, colors, tones, moods etc than on whether it is noise free or not....
I agree with some of this. But what will pass on a 1280x1024 pixel monitor screen or a 6x4 print in terms of sharpness and noise will not necessarily pass on a higher resolution monitor or a larger print.

So far as sharpness goes, the best we can do is to view the image on the monitor at as near the actual image size (in inches or mm) at which it will be viewed, because perceived sharpness is, in part, an optical illusion, depending on how clearly we can perceive edges and fine detail. So If I'm going to send a full 4:3 frame for printing at 10.7x8 inches, I should judge its appearance on a screen image that is 10.7x8 inches on my monitor screen, as measured with a ruler.

Noise is more complicated. My monitor displays 1280 pixels across 13 inches (336mm). That is 97 pixels per inch (ppi). But the resolution of my 10Mpix images is 3648 pixels across, and a 13 inch version has 276 pixels per inch, 2.85 times the resolution. So my monitor can't display all the detail in my images unless I blow the image up at least 2.8x.

This doesn't usually matter for a print 4 inches high, but it definitely matters for one 12 or 16 inches high, or more importantly, for predominantly screen-based viewers, when you need to crop the image, which immediately increases the magnification of any defects in the image. Ideally images should be viewed at the distance the artist intended - reading distance for small prints, progressively further away for larger presentations. However, people have an unfortunate habit of wanting to look in detail at images they like. This is rather unforgiving.

However, when you have a large print made, it is likely that the printing software will upscale your image to something like 400ppi, in order to utilise the output resolution of which the printer is capable. If it does that by clever interpolation, it still looks good. That's why we got by with far fewer pixels on earlier digicams, and why dSLR users with good lenses and big sensors, starting with really crisp images, don't need lots of pixels as much as we do.

I frequently found noise a nuisance on my Z712, and hardly ever used anything but ISO100. Things are better on the Z1012, and I've ventured to higher ISO more often.

My point about the test images was that the noise present in the various ISO tests in Steve's reviews can properly be compared only by downloading his full, original camera image to your own machine, and then (a) viewing them comparatively at a degree of magnification that shows the noise, and (b) viewing them at a magnification that represents your intended final use of your own images from your new camera. Otherwise, you are subject to variations imposed by resizing software.
Alan T 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 2:20 AM.