In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , Floyd L. Davidson says...

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson says...

Alfred Molon wrote:
Once again: explain why at ISO 64 the exposure time is THREE times the
exposure time at ISO 200.

The DXOMark site you are referring to claims that both at ISO 64 and ISO
200 the real ISO is 83.

But if the real ISOs at ISO 64 and 200 really both were 83, the exposure
times should be the same. They are not, so DXOMark and you are wrong.

You don't understand sensor characteristics, ISO, or
exposure; and should not be saying others are wrong.

DXOMark is not wrong.

Consider that the design target for maximum output from
a sensor, in terms of linearity, may not be the actual
maximum output. Also consider that a "correct" exposure
level might be 2.7 fstops below whatever is chosen as
the "maximum output", or it might be 1.3 fstops! All of
that is totally independent of when whites actually do
clip, which is a function of the ADC, not the sensor.

And all of that makes what you believe to be how it
works just a little bit the other side of a fantasy too.

Floyd,

please explain why at ISO 64 the exposure time is three times the
exposure time at ISO 200. DXOMark claims that at both ISO settings the
true ISO is 83.

For the reasons already stated above!

Again a non-answer to a simple question.

The claim was made that the ISO 3200 of the E-M1 II is not a real ISO
3200, and to back up this claim the data on DXOMark was referenced.

But this DXOMark data is obviously wrong - DXOMark measure the same ISO
83 at both ISO 64 and ISO 200, when in reality the exposure times are
vastly different.

Extended low ISO are been explained to you earlier in this thread. You
just don't want hear nor learn. mFT sensors are silly small only a
quarter of the size of fullframe ones. It's close to fraud comparing
them... Bigger is better! :-ppp
--
teleportation kills