• IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago
  • yawlenzpanorama_fish_eye
    14 posts
    2 years ago

    Not all that much wrong with it is there? Even when the notion of signal amplification is probably not out of a beginner's reach, so as that can be a substitute for sensor sensitivity.

  • TonyBeachpanorama_fish_eye
    208 posts
    2 years ago

    "The lower the ISO number, the less sensitive the image sensor is to light, resulting in less noise in the image."

    Let me get this straight. Lowering "sensitivity" decreases noise?

  • DanHasLeftForumhelp_outline
    4254 posts
    2 years ago
  • JimKassonpanorama_fish_eye
    1738 posts
    2 years ago

    Are you confused on that point?

    .

  • DanHasLeftForumhelp_outline
    4254 posts
    2 years ago

    With the thread title "Education continues" and then the link in the op with no other information it is reasonable for beginners to conclude that IliahBorg is saying the article in his op is accurate.

    It appears yawlenz believes the article in the op is mostly accurate.

  • IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago

    Yes, it appears so, "Not all that much wrong with it is there?", meaning, he knows that I don't approve of the article.

  • IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago

    and they can't find the light.

    Why B&H are doing this is totally incomprehensible to me.

  • DanHasLeftForumhelp_outline
    4254 posts
    2 years ago

    Maybe he meant that or maybe he/she thinks most of it is correct and is asking you if you you think there is anything not correct in it.

    You don't get to decide for everyone else what yawlenz means anymore than I or anyone else does.

    I didn't interpret yawlenz's post the way you did.

  • IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago

    I read what was posted and decide what it means.
    Nothing further.

  • DanHasLeftForumhelp_outline
    4254 posts
    2 years ago

    Yes, you get to decide on behalf of yourself only and certainly not for me or anyone else. That is the point I was making 🙂

  • SrMipanorama_fish_eye
    457 posts
    2 years ago

    I am not surprised that B&H would share such an article. They have similar articles on their own page (link):
    "With digital sensors, when we adjust ISO ... we are increasing its sensitivity electronically by, in layman's terms, increasing the voltage to the sensor."

  • bobn2panorama_fish_eye
    2 years ago

    Apart from just about everything.

  • bobn2panorama_fish_eye
    2 years ago

    I've put a comment on the article, as I do. It's awaiting 'moderation'. Let's see how it goes. Interestingly, last time I did this the site actually came back to me, and I ended up editing their article for correctness. It was a difficult job, because I was trying to do it without excising everything that the original author had written.
    The base problem was the same, assuming that someone knows much about photography just because they are a professional photographer - which before I get adverse comments, does not at all mean that no professional photographer knows anything about photography.

  • yawlenzpanorama_fish_eye
    14 posts
    2 years ago

    Reading the article linked to in the OP and trying to scan for the obvious and regular fallacies that I thought mr. Borg would be hinting at, I didn't notice a sheer multitude of them. So I can't quite get why he would choose to get fired up about it. As its author reminded her audience a few times over of the importance of keeping iso low enough to optimize the actual sensor exposure (within requirements of motion blur and dof) – is there any good reason to deny her the slack? I'm not so willing to go drive the adamant route to haven.

  • IliahBorgpanorama_fish_eye
    976 posts
    2 years ago

    So did I.

  • DanHasLeftForumhelp_outline
    4254 posts
    2 years ago

    One very obvious fallacy in that article is that aperture, shutter speed and ISO determine the exposure for an image.

    Actually scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed, not ISO determine the exposure*.

    You can alter the image lightness without altering the exposure* at all.

    The author of the article doesn’t define exposure.

    * exposure. - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

  • DeletedRemoved user
    2 years ago

    LOL.

    I challenge anyone here to reference a camera sensor that has a linearly variable "sensitivity" - no need to mention the Aptina or it's licenceés.