The proof is in the printing ...

Started May 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
John King
John King Forum Pro • Posts: 14,941
Perhaps you should re-read some stuff?

Sergey_Green wrote:

John King wrote:

As I stated before: as ISO (cameras) is defined by the ISO (standards organisation). Here:

Did you read it? It appears not ...

You stated before that you prefer Bill Claff's scientific approach, which, in your words, start with measuring real world examples. To which Bill Claff stated earlier that he does not measure "real" world examples, but collects manufacturer stated ISO instead. Now you are alluding that there is a well defined standard for measuring ISO (appears you know nothing about), which even more contradicts your earlier statement.
Again, Bill Claff specifically states that the native ISO of the sensor is seldom exactly a standard value, and the native ISO information is all he is interested in,
ISO Collaboration
I do not know what to say, did you not know what you write, or did you write it intentionally. If so, then for what gain, why?


Re-read what I wrote, perhaps?

Re-read what Bill Claff has written about his data collection and analysis methodology perhaps?
He does not measure ISO, he measures dynamic range from RAW files at the manufacturer's stated ISO settings, that are determined in accordance (hopefully) with the International Standards Organisation standards.

Re-read the ISO standard for the measurement and determination of ISO settings for cameras perhaps?

BTW, you still haven't supplied any references of any description for the bald statements you made upthread ...

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 II +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow