Google| Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 01/09/2016 07:15 (01/09/2016 01:15) |
| Message-ID | <090120160115329332%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (3h & 8m) > nospam |
In article <sandman-1eb60902047351623183b5ce86cd4784@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
it's not physically possible, no matter how good sensors or electronics will get.SandmanEric StevensSandman
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.And thus, most people can easily calculate in their head how many stops of difference there is between ISO 800 and ISO 3,200.But, how many stops are there between ISO 51,200 and ISO 3,276,800?It's becoming increasingly unwieldy.Eric Stevens
Or at least it will be if these levels become the normal operating range for photographers.
Eventually they will, of course. They're not today, and won't be for a while. But both sensor technology and in-camera amplification/noise control is getting better and better.
the amount of light at iso 3276800 per pixel for saturation is far too low, with the number of photons in the single digit range.
01/06/2016-
