Google| Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 01/07/2016 10:02 (01/07/2016 04:02) |
| Message-ID | <070120160402078938%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (1h & 37m) > nospam |
In article <sandman-89ad8d37de3f4b5f2d316edbb43a4098@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
logarithmic, because each stop is double the previous versus an increase by a fixed amount, the very definition of a logarithmic scale.SandmanSandmanEric 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?
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.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale> It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so each mark on the scale is the previous mark multiplied by a value.
in this case, the value is 2.
And thus, most people can easily calculate in their head how many stops of difference there is between ISO 800 and ISO 3,200.only because they've seen those numbers before.
it's the same as knowing that f/2.8 is 3 stops faster than f/8, or that 1/160th is 1/3rd stop less than 1/125th, all without doing the math.
But, how many stops are there between ISO 51,200 and ISO 3,276,800?6
It's becoming increasingly unwieldy.not at all. all that's needed is learning a few new numbers. no big deal.
and it's not like anyone is actually going to be shooting at those speeds all that often anyway (if at all, other than for a review).
non-issue.
01/06/2016-
