Some info on the 24 MP Nikon - from a Sony engineer

Started Oct 29, 2008 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,281
Re: Two inconsistencies...

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

Yes, but you are comparing the 1DIII FWC at 100ISO with the D3 at

On the sensor level there is no such thing as ISO. On the camera
level ISO is a pretty arbitrary number.

This is not correct, the sensor has a native ISO sensitivity,

Bob, before stating something is incorrect please take your time to
study things a little better. If you think saying something is
incorrect will forces the other person to explain things to you -
well, it does not work that way.

Iliah, I'm not trying to 'force' anyone to explain anything to me. I'm very happy to listen to an explanation if I'm wrong, and if that explanation holds water, then I'll change my views. I presume that you are saying is that there is no definition of ISO that can be used directly on the raw output of a sensor, they are referred to sRGB space (or the REI method, which is arbitrary), and therefore a sensor by itself cannot have an ISO rating. However, if that was your thinking then the whole set of Roger Clark's tables is also incorrect, since it also uses the term ISO in a similar way. I think that what you probably didn't realise was that when I (and maybe Roger, for all I know) used the letters ISO, I was not referring to the International Standards Organisation, I was referring to the less well known Index of Sensor Output, which conveniently provides a relative measure of the number of incident photons necessary to produce a full scale output from a sensor. Conveniently, this is measured in arbitrary units which align rather well with the old American Standards Association film speed ratings;-)

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow