Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
From | Sandman |
Date | 01/07/2016 07:28 (01/07/2016 07:28) |
Message-ID | <sandman-89ad8d37de3f4b5f2d316edbb43a4098@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
Followups | nospam (2h & 33m) > Sandman RichA (17h & 9m) Eric Stevens (18h & 7m) > Sandman |
There's nothing inherently wrong with it. And since most people learn quickly that ISO is an arithmetic scale, they know the value doubles for each stop.SandmanEric Stevens
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.
What's wrong with 3.2 MISO?