A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The base ("native") ISO of a sensor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 28th 17, 09:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 28th 17, 10:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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  
Old May 28th 17, 11:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default 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  
Old May 28th 17, 11:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default 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  
Old May 28th 17, 02:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old May 28th 17, 10:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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  
Old May 28th 17, 11:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old May 29th 17, 03:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old May 29th 17, 06:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 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  
Old May 29th 17, 06:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony's new sensor. "white" pixel filtering? nospam Digital SLR Cameras 0 February 9th 12 06:50 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 07:02 PM
Question for J. Theakston -- "Third Base"?? Radium Film & Labs 2 October 9th 06 04:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.