Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
From | nospam |
Date | 01/06/2016 16:10 (01/06/2016 10:10) |
Message-ID | <060120161010401755%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (16m) |
it doesn't fall apart at all.SandmanSandmanWhisky-dave
That would put more normal values to these numbers. The Hi5 setting of the D5 sounds unbelievably high, which of course it also is, but it's "only" twice as "sensitive" as ISO 12,800, but the way ISO is named makes it look stupid as fuck.
are you sure about that as it makes NO sense or is it nonsense. Doubling the ISO effectively doubles or makes it twice as sensitive to light meaing you only need half the exposure.
Which people understand when you talk about ISO 200 or ISO 6400 because those numbers are easier to understand. While few understand it's "only" five exposure stops between those values and they may seem like a larger difference than what they really are, the entire system falls apart when you compare ISO 102,400 with ISO 3,276,800, which is also a five stop difference.