Well, we've had focal plane shutters (a misnomer no matter which definition of focal plane you use) for a long time. And we talk about depth of field in front of the lens, and depth of focus behind the lens...
Well, we've had focal plane shutters (a misnomer no matter which definition of focal plane you use) for a long time. And we talk about depth of field in front of the lens, and depth of focus behind the lens...
@bobn2 has written: @JimKasson has written:At the focal plane implies below the stack, the microlenses, and the CFA. That doesn't seem right.
Worse, it's actually the image plane. The focal plane is out there in front of the camera.
Well, we've had focal plane shutters (a misnomer no matter which definition of focal plane you use) for a long time. And we talk about depth of field in front of the lens, and depth of focus behind the lens...
I know - it's where photographers' parlance is out of key with optical parlance. But we know what they mean π
I'm not saying it doesn't change sensitivity, I'm saying it changes responsivity too, and IMHO it's the major effect ;)
Agreed. Like saying that the steering wheel changes the speed of the car - yes it does but...
Quoted message:Each time you increase the ISO to a level, the sensorβs sensitivity is doubled (ISO 100 to ISO 200, ISO 200 to ISO 400, and so on). This means that you need half the amount of light hitting your sensor for the same exposure. Thus, exposure is increased by a factor of 2.
petapixel.com/exposure-triangle/
Pure hogwash ...
Ah, but such wonderful hogwash, full bodied, earthy, long on the palate, nervous, round, blah, blah, blah ...
But wait, there's another article :
The Exposure Triangle Sucks, Hereβs Why
petapixel.com/2016/07/18/never-teach-exposure-triangle-beginners/
The more recent article is just a memory test.
I honestly feel like I know less about ISO now than when I started coming to forums years ago.
Especially this forum. It's like a house of mirrors. Everyone is an "expert" and none of them agree with one-another.
It's a bit like going to the circus and watching the clowns.
@Mackiesback has written:I honestly feel like I know less about ISO now than when I started coming to forums years ago.
Especially this forum. It's like a house of mirrors. Everyone is an "expert" and none of them agree with one-another.
It's a bit like going to the circus and watching the clowns.
No that is not quite right.
If you read through the posts/articles of IliahBorg, JimKasson, Bobn2, MichaelFryd, Richard Butler (DPReview) et al you will see that they all say pretty much the same thing about what ISO is and its purpose.
These 2 posts/articles also say pretty much the same as they do.
@PeteW has written: @Mackiesback has written:I honestly feel like I know less about ISO now than when I started coming to forums years ago.
Especially this forum. It's like a house of mirrors. Everyone is an "expert" and none of them agree with one-another.
It's a bit like going to the circus and watching the clowns.
No that is not quite right.
If you read through the posts/articles of IliahBorg, JimKasson, Bobn2, MichaelFryd, Richard Butler (DPReview) et al you will see that they all say pretty much the same thing about what ISO is and its purpose.
These 2 posts/articles also say pretty much the same as they do.
Its funny because all those people you named use the iso control in there cameras the same as everyone else in the world.
so whats your argument again π΅βπ«ππ
@DannoLeftForums has written: @PeteW has written: @Mackiesback has written:I honestly feel like I know less about ISO now than when I started coming to forums years ago.
Especially this forum. It's like a house of mirrors. Everyone is an "expert" and none of them agree with one-another.
It's a bit like going to the circus and watching the clowns.
No that is not quite right.
If you read through the posts/articles of IliahBorg, JimKasson, Bobn2, MichaelFryd, Richard Butler (DPReview) et al you will see that they all say pretty much the same thing about what ISO is and its purpose.
These 2 posts/articles also say pretty much the same as they do.
Its funny because all those people you named use the iso control in there cameras the same as everyone else in the world.
so whats your argument again π΅βπ«ππ
What iso is and its purpose doesn't necessarily dictate how people must use iso.
For example, I normally use Auto ISO.
Another option is to set iso manually.
I normally use Auto ISO.
Another option is to set iso manually.
That would seem to exhaust the options...
David
@DannoLeftForums has written:I normally use Auto ISO.
Another option is to set iso manually.
That would seem to exhaust the options...
David
Yep, that was the point I was making π€ in reply to DonaldB's comment implying that everyone in the world uses ISO in the same way which is ludicrous.
Its funny because all those people you named use the iso control in there cameras the same as everyone else in the world.
all those people you named use the iso control in there cameras the same as everyone else in the world.
On some of my cameras I use direct sensor gain programming and never touch ISO control.
@DannoLeftForums has written:I normally use Auto ISO.
Another option is to set iso manually.
That would seem to exhaust the options...
David
It's a shame that camera manufacturers haven't thought to fit a 'set ISO randomly' control.
@IliahBorg has written:I'm not saying it doesn't change sensitivity, I'm saying it changes responsivity too, and IMHO it's the major effect ;)
Agreed. Like saying that the steering wheel changes the speed of the car - yes it does but...
Actually, as speed is a scalar quantity, I suspect you mean velocity.
David
@bobn2 has written: @IliahBorg has written:I'm not saying it doesn't change sensitivity, I'm saying it changes responsivity too, and IMHO it's the major effect ;)
Agreed. Like saying that the steering wheel changes the speed of the car - yes it does but...
Actually, as speed is a scalar quantity, I suspect you mean velocity.
No, I meant the speed.
@DonaldB has written:all those people you named use the iso control in there cameras the same as everyone else in the world.
On some of my cameras I use direct sensor gain programming and never touch ISO control.
can you be more specific
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:all those people you named use the iso control in there cameras the same as everyone else in the world.
On some of my cameras I use direct sensor gain programming and never touch ISO control.
can you be more specific
It's like with video cameras, direct control, in dB or EV.
@davidwien has written: @bobn2 has written: @IliahBorg has written:I'm not saying it doesn't change sensitivity, I'm saying it changes responsivity too, and IMHO it's the major effect ;)
Agreed. Like saying that the steering wheel changes the speed of the car - yes it does but...
Actually, as speed is a scalar quantity, I suspect you mean velocity.
No, I meant the speed.
But you did realize what David meant, I hope. With velocity being a vector, and any movement of the steering wheel changing the direction of motion.
@davidwien has written: @bobn2 has written: @IliahBorg has written:I'm not saying it doesn't change sensitivity, I'm saying it changes responsivity too, and IMHO it's the major effect ;)
Agreed. Like saying that the steering wheel changes the speed of the car - yes it does but...
Actually, as speed is a scalar quantity, I suspect you mean velocity.
No, I meant the speed.
Let me see if Iβve got this right. If itβs scalar, the consequence of turning the wheel changes speed by scrubbing energy from the wheels as the sidewalls of the tires encounter resistance against the road. If itβs vector, youβre exchanging distance/time in the x axis for d/t in the y axis (and probably z axis as well).
Inquiring minds need to know.
Rich