"Siddhartha Jain" writes:

ISO is 50,100, 200 ...... 3200. Now that ISO is your sensor's gain,
would it make sense to make vary at 50, 60, 70 .... 3200?

Well, some of those divisions are small enough to hardly matter. For
ISO I don't think it's a big deal. But there's a certain *why not*
factor since, as you say, it's not governed by worms, gears, and
cogs.

Same goes for other parameters that are no longer governed by worms,
gears and cogs.

And in fact you'll find that starting in the 1970s cameras with
electronic shutters started picking shutter speeds that weren't
exactly one of the usual suspects. They didn't necessarily let you
set them *by hand*, though, only in auto mode, at first. And not
*too* long after that they did the same for aperture. Lenses often
had half-stop clicks on the aperture ring, and regardless of clicks
photographers often tried to approximate intermediate settings (and
with built-in light meters could do this fairly accurately).

Zoom and focus were generally continuous on older equipment; though
one of the complaints about some consumer digitals is that they
claimed "manual focus" where they actually just let you set to one of
a small list of focus distances. But I think that was a short-term
stupidity.

The other one I'd like is having a "super-program" mode where altering
the ISO enters into the camera's calculations (I know some of the
consumer models do auto-iso selection). There are times where I'd
rather bump up to ISO 1600 than risk the camera shake of 1/10 second
exposure, and I'm already shooting at f1.4.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/