If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
On Sat, 27 May 2017 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Saturday, 27 May 2017 04:44:29 UTC-4, Me wrote: On 27/05/2017 5:19 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... Oh nice. Bill Claff has produced an interactive chart showing comparison between set ISO and measured ISO. Olympus OMD E1 MkII overstates real ISO by 1.23 stops! Something many fanboys won't want to accept I guess - those ISO3200 shots are actually only ISO 1365 - LOL. He's also measured base/native ISO is ISO 200. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Measured_ISO.htm He measures ISO 83 both at ISO 64 and ISO 200 with the Olympus E-M1 II. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times longer than at ISO 200, so clearly this Bill Claff is wrong. DXO say the same, so no, Bill Claff is not wrong: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp..._1136_1070_909 Olympus lie about ISO. Big lies - Trump style lies. DXO is for zombies. They think camera lenses "change their physical shaprness characteristics" with sensor size and resolution. News flash, DXO, they don't. If they had an interferometer, they'd SEE that. But they are not measuring with an interferometer. They are measuring real performance with real sensors. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
In article , Me says...
On 28/05/2017 1:31 AM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... On 27/05/2017 5:19 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... Oh nice. Bill Claff has produced an interactive chart showing comparison between set ISO and measured ISO. Olympus OMD E1 MkII overstates real ISO by 1.23 stops! Something many fanboys won't want to accept I guess - those ISO3200 shots are actually only ISO 1365 - LOL. He's also measured base/native ISO is ISO 200. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Measured_ISO.htm He measures ISO 83 both at ISO 64 and ISO 200 with the Olympus E-M1 II. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times longer than at ISO 200, so clearly this Bill Claff is wrong. DXO say the same, so no, Bill Claff is not wrong: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp..._1136_1070_909 Olympus lie about ISO. Big lies - Trump style lies. No. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is *three times* the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings do not have the same "true ISO" of 83. That is a *fact* and if DXOMark or whoever say otherwise, they are wrong. Don't be silly. Base ISO (set in camera) is 200 = real ISO 83. This answers your original question about "native" or "base" ISO of the sensor. If you don't want to believe that Olympus OMD EM1 real ISO is 1.23 stops below stated ISO, bully for you. I don't really care. You should stop parroting what you read on the web and start using your brain. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings can't be the same "true ISO" 83 as claimed by DXOMark. Or do you have an explanation why the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the one at ISO 200 if in both cases the true ISO is the same as claimed by DXO? -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... On 28/05/2017 1:31 AM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... On 27/05/2017 5:19 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... Oh nice. Bill Claff has produced an interactive chart showing comparison between set ISO and measured ISO. Olympus OMD E1 MkII overstates real ISO by 1.23 stops! Something many fanboys won't want to accept I guess - those ISO3200 shots are actually only ISO 1365 - LOL. He's also measured base/native ISO is ISO 200. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Measured_ISO.htm He measures ISO 83 both at ISO 64 and ISO 200 with the Olympus E-M1 II. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times longer than at ISO 200, so clearly this Bill Claff is wrong. DXO say the same, so no, Bill Claff is not wrong: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...s-OM-D-E-M1-Ma rk-II-versus-Olympus-PEN-F-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___1136_1070_909 Olympus lie about ISO. Big lies - Trump style lies. No. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is *three times* the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings do not have the same "true ISO" of 83. That is a *fact* and if DXOMark or whoever say otherwise, they are wrong. Don't be silly. Base ISO (set in camera) is 200 = real ISO 83. This answers your original question about "native" or "base" ISO of the sensor. If you don't want to believe that Olympus OMD EM1 real ISO is 1.23 stops below stated ISO, bully for you. I don't really care. You should stop parroting what you read on the web and start using your brain. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings can't be the same "true ISO" 83 as claimed by DXOMark. Or do you have an explanation why the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the one at ISO 200 if in both cases the true ISO is the same as claimed by DXO? I think that that what we have here is a case of undocumented "Extended ISO" in the Olympus firmware. https://petapixel.com/2017/05/24/use-extended-low-iso-cleaner-photos/ or http://tinyurl.com/lhp9lyy -- teleportation kills |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
On 28/05/2017 9:11 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Me says... On 28/05/2017 1:31 AM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... On 27/05/2017 5:19 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... Oh nice. Bill Claff has produced an interactive chart showing comparison between set ISO and measured ISO. Olympus OMD E1 MkII overstates real ISO by 1.23 stops! Something many fanboys won't want to accept I guess - those ISO3200 shots are actually only ISO 1365 - LOL. He's also measured base/native ISO is ISO 200. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Measured_ISO.htm He measures ISO 83 both at ISO 64 and ISO 200 with the Olympus E-M1 II. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times longer than at ISO 200, so clearly this Bill Claff is wrong. DXO say the same, so no, Bill Claff is not wrong: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp..._1136_1070_909 Olympus lie about ISO. Big lies - Trump style lies. No. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is *three times* the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings do not have the same "true ISO" of 83. That is a *fact* and if DXOMark or whoever say otherwise, they are wrong. Don't be silly. Base ISO (set in camera) is 200 = real ISO 83. This answers your original question about "native" or "base" ISO of the sensor. If you don't want to believe that Olympus OMD EM1 real ISO is 1.23 stops below stated ISO, bully for you. I don't really care. You should stop parroting what you read on the web and start using your brain. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings can't be the same "true ISO" 83 as claimed by DXOMark. Or do you have an explanation why the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the one at ISO 200 if in both cases the true ISO is the same as claimed by DXO? The answer to your question is obvious - so use /your/ brain - instead of assuming that everybody who disagrees with you or questions what you states are as stupid as you are - and insulting them. *Olympus overstate ISO as a deliberate con for marketing purposes. Much the same as VW (and other car makers) understate emissions. The fact that few people seem to give a **** about deception by dishonest companies isn't the issue. Don't whine that I'm being nasty by calling you stupid - I may have been nasty about a deceptively marketed product you're a fanboy of - but you started with a personal attack. *all the makers tend to overstate ISO, but none as consistently extreme as bull**** artists Olympus. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: DXO is for zombies. They think camera lenses "change their physical shaprness characteristics" with sensor size and resolution. News flash, DXO, they don't. If they had an interferometer, they'd SEE that. But they are not measuring with an interferometer. They are measuring real performance with real sensors. and getting results that are not physically possible. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
In article , Me says...
On 28/05/2017 9:11 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... On 28/05/2017 1:31 AM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... On 27/05/2017 5:19 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... Oh nice. Bill Claff has produced an interactive chart showing comparison between set ISO and measured ISO. Olympus OMD E1 MkII overstates real ISO by 1.23 stops! Something many fanboys won't want to accept I guess - those ISO3200 shots are actually only ISO 1365 - LOL. He's also measured base/native ISO is ISO 200. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Measured_ISO.htm He measures ISO 83 both at ISO 64 and ISO 200 with the Olympus E-M1 II. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times longer than at ISO 200, so clearly this Bill Claff is wrong. DXO say the same, so no, Bill Claff is not wrong: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp..._1136_1070_909 Olympus lie about ISO. Big lies - Trump style lies. No. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is *three times* the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings do not have the same "true ISO" of 83. That is a *fact* and if DXOMark or whoever say otherwise, they are wrong. Don't be silly. Base ISO (set in camera) is 200 = real ISO 83. This answers your original question about "native" or "base" ISO of the sensor. If you don't want to believe that Olympus OMD EM1 real ISO is 1.23 stops below stated ISO, bully for you. I don't really care. You should stop parroting what you read on the web and start using your brain. If the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times the exposure time at ISO 200, then both ISO settings can't be the same "true ISO" 83 as claimed by DXOMark. Or do you have an explanation why the exposure time at ISO 64 is three The answer to your question is obvious - so use /your/ brain - instead of assuming that everybody who disagrees with you or questions what you states are as stupid as you are - and insulting them. *Olympus overstate ISO as a deliberate con for marketing purposes. Much the same as VW (and other car makers) understate emissions. The fact that few people seem to give a **** about deception by dishonest companies isn't the issue. Don't whine that I'm being nasty by calling you stupid - I may have been nasty about a deceptively marketed product you're a fanboy of - but you started with a personal attack. *all the makers tend to overstate ISO, but none as consistently extreme as bull**** artists Olympus. You are just bull****ting around without addressing the real issue. 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. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
On Sun, 28 May 2017 06:56:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Sunday, 28 May 2017 04:51:17 UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Saturday, 27 May 2017 04:44:29 UTC-4, Me wrote: On 27/05/2017 5:19 PM, Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Me says... Oh nice. Bill Claff has produced an interactive chart showing comparison between set ISO and measured ISO. Olympus OMD E1 MkII overstates real ISO by 1.23 stops! Something many fanboys won't want to accept I guess - those ISO3200 shots are actually only ISO 1365 - LOL. He's also measured base/native ISO is ISO 200. http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/Measured_ISO.htm He measures ISO 83 both at ISO 64 and ISO 200 with the Olympus E-M1 II. But the exposure time at ISO 64 is three times longer than at ISO 200, so clearly this Bill Claff is wrong. DXO say the same, so no, Bill Claff is not wrong: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp..._1136_1070_909 Olympus lie about ISO. Big lies - Trump style lies. DXO is for zombies. They think camera lenses "change their physical shaprness characteristics" with sensor size and resolution. News flash, DXO, they don't. If they had an interferometer, they'd SEE that. But they are not measuring with an interferometer. They are measuring real performance with real sensors. -- Regards, Eric Stevens It still has nothing to DO with the lens's absolute optical correction. It's like the m4/3rds people calling a 300mm lens a 600mm lens. Your original complaint is that "They think camera lenses "change their physical shaprness characteristics" with sensor size and resolution." I don't exactly know what (your interpretation of) DxO might mean but basically when you are determining the physical sharpness of a lens when used with an actual sensor it is obvious that the physical sharpness will depend in part on the characteristics of the sensor used. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
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 L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
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. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The base ("native") ISO of a sensor
In article ,
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. You apparently never did grip the concept of extended low ISO... https://petapixel.com/2017/05/24/use-extended-low-iso-cleaner-photos/ Let's try again: For convenience a lower ISO setting than true base are offered to the photog and compensated for before writing the dump to file! That would require some cloaked features in firmware on Olympus part. Other manufacturers does offer this right out in broad daylight... -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering? | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 9th 12 05:50 PM |
Sony Exmor R ("back illuminated") sensor in production | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 31 | August 21st 09 08:40 AM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
Nov Foveon wants the..."pill" camera sensor market.....no jokes! | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 17th 07 06:02 PM |
Question for J. Theakston -- "Third Base"?? | Radium | Film & Labs | 2 | October 9th 06 04:01 AM |