I have been researching digital cameras for almost a full year and am now tempted to take the plunge and buy a $1000 range camera.

Here's the question : Some of the cameras are listed as having an ISO equivalence of ISO 100. In my typical 35mm camera usage, film speed makes a big difference and I do switch speeds due to available lighting. Is this an issue with the digital cameras? If I were to purchase the Kodak DC-260, would I have difficulty taking pictures in low lighting?

-- Keith Cremer (cremerkj@mbox4.singnet.com.sg), May 20, 1998

Answers

There seems to be a LOT of room for interpretation in digital camera ISO ratings - maybe we'll have to come up with a test for this. For instance, the CoolPix 900 is only rated at ISO 64, but actually does quite well in low light, far better than its conservative rating would suggest. Likewise, the Casio models don't give an ISO rating, but if you work out the shutter speed, lens f-stop, and the light level they're capable of shooting at (the QV-700 or -770 for example), you come up with an effective ISO of 3200!

There's a standards committee working on how to specify ISO for digital cameras, but they probably won't have even a draft standard for another year yet. For now, all we can do is just test the devices as best we can, share experiences. (We try to give some indication of low-light performance in all our camera reviews these days, specifying lowest light levels in EV units, based on entirely subjective, non-scientific playing around...)

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), June 03, 1998.

I too am puzzled about the ISO rating of the various camera's I've been studying. I was zeroing in on the Oly 500 because of the ISO 180 rating; but the newer models being introduced have much beter feature sets aside from the ISO thing. Especially the coolpix 900 w/ a ISO of 64. How important does this become. A discussion is needed.

-- Don Gobeil (dgobeil@gwi.net), May 21, 1998.