ISO RANGE

[bobn2]

I would pay extra for a camera with no ISO control, manual or auto. :-D

And what would that pre-set ISO be?

There is no need for there to be any 'pre-set' ISO.

When it changes the ISO setting, it will change whatever your particular camera links to the ISO setting, such as internal voltage gain, involuntary NR and so on. If you're using auto ISO with M it cannot change the exposure, since the exposure is directly controlled by the shutter and aperture controls, along with whatever is the light from the scene.

I never use Auto ISO.

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I've never seen or heard of a camera that would let you manually do anything when set to auto ISO.

The camera chooses the ISO setting.

In regards to ISO, you can use exposure compensation to force the camera to choose a higher or lower ISO than the algorithm would otherwise choose.

A higher or lower exposure. Changing EC doesn't change the ISO number: for instance, I don't think it will change the amount of NR applied to JPGs, or the amount of analog gain.

As stated, if you dial-in an EC adjustment on a camera set to manual plus auto ISO, it will alter the ISO that would otherwise be chosen by the camera. Exposure settings are controlled manually in this mode and adjusting ISO is the only avenue left open to the camera to alter a photo's appearance.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

 

[D Cox]

I would pay extra for a camera with no ISO control, manual or auto. :-D

:-O I bet you're the only one. ;-) Just choose manual ISO and set it to the value you want.

That's what I do, of course.

Don

 

[Marek M]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

 

[tony field]

Not that I disagree with you in principle, but that noise shows up on the neck under the chin--right in the middle of the picture. A good noise reduction program would work wonders or just slight smoothing underneath. I mean, background noise, noise at the corners, who cares, but this is splotchy in-you-face noise.

I very much like and admire your 500px page. Definitely fine images for content and excellent processing.

In my case, having shot film since the 1960s, I have become visually immune to effects of noise and do not "see noise" and virtually never apply noise reduction: noise is a component of an image. I certainly appreciate that most contemporary photographers have a strong aversion to noise.

My principle concern is image sharpness as given by shutter speed.

Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.

It is dependent on what and why you shoot. Here is an example of a theatre shot with an ancient Nikon 6mp D100 from the very early 2000s which has a native ISO 200-1600 and has low dynamic range. I often shot at 6400 but rarely above. I never worry about noise. In some respects, it adds to the "mood". With modern cameras I never have a concern.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[bobn2]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same. It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise, but in the scale of things that is a minor effect, and certainly overwhelmed by the noise implications of your exposure decisions.

 

[tony field]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same. It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise, but in the scale of things that is a minor effect, and certainly overwhelmed by the noise implications of your exposure decisions.

The only time I experienced auto ISO failure in actual photography with light meter is when shooting Pano and there are noticeable exposure variations in the clouds and or buildings.

Another situation is when shooting difficult ballet stage light where fixed ISO is usually more appropriate, probably with manual exposure.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[Marek M]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

I think you overestimate me. I use simple processes, some of them are simply force of habit. For example, I always shoot RAW, I never use Auto ISO, I never use Spot Metering, 99% of time it is Aperture priority, simple things like that. I would not even attempt discussing them, that's the way I like them. You may call me limited, I am perfectly fine with it.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same.

Not sure what there is to discuss. That they are not different? Or, why are they different? I think you may need a better partner for your discussion. I am satisfied with simple: They are different.

It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise,

Actually, the reverse is true.

 

[alfn]

Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.

Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.

I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

Correct. It is the effective sensitivity of the camera and should be referred to as the ISO sensitivity setting.

ISO says it is an 'exposure index'. The latest version defines 'photographic sensitivity' which is 'general term for numerical values based on the exposure at the focal plane of a DSC which produces a specified DSC image signal level, such as the standard output sensitivity or recommended exposure index'.

In other words the effective sensitivity of the camera (DSC).

That depends entirely on what you mean by 'effective sensitivity'. It requires an unusual interpretation of the word 'sensitivity' to make it mean the same as ISO's own word salad. Even more so when you actually read the standard. For instance the 'specified DSC signal level' under the recommended exposure index is 'the arithmetic mean focal plane exposure, expressed in lux-seconds, recommended by the DSC provider'. That is, the 'specified signal level' is whatever the camera manufacturer chooses to recommend.

I think you'll have a hard time finding any other 'sensitivity' defined as 'whatever the manufacturer recommends'. The 'standard output sensitivity' is little better. That says that the specified signal level is 'equal to 461/1000 x Omax, where Omax is the maximum output value of the digital system'. So, even if one thinks that 'sensitivity' is synonymous with 'responsivity', this is a standard where the 'effective sensitivity' might be changed simply by changing the value of a number (Omax) in software.

Simply, this definition of 'sensitivity' aligns with no other usage of the word in a technical domain.

The standard says exactly this about terminology:

'Note 1 to entry: In practise, the photographic sensitivity is often called the "sensitivity" or the "camera sensitivity". It is sometimes called the "ISO sensitivity", for historical reasons that date from ISO standards for photographic film cameras.

So the photographic sensitivity [of the camera] is often referred to as simply sensitivity or camera sensitivity for historical reasons. That makes sense when one is dealing with photographic standards created over a long period. Consistency is the whole point of standards.

It also makes sense if you're looking for agreement on a committee of diverse interests and views.

So, they don't say that it 'should' be referred to as the ISO sensitivity, they say that it is sometimes called that.

Or camera sensitivity or simply sensitivity. All as defined by the ISO standard. Thus ISO sensitivity.

They say precisely what they say, that it is sometimes called sensitivity, not that it should be called sensitivity.

All the rest of your post is an elaborate fantasy created by you to justify calling the ISO sensitivity setting anything other than what it is.

If there had been a technical reason for calling it 'ISO sensitivity' they would have given it, in fine detail and with formulae that explained it. The very fact that they say that it is for historical reasons means that there is no technical reason, but a historical one.

So we are all agreed: the so-called ISO control is the sensitivity setting.

 

[bobn2]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

I think you overestimate me. I use simple processes, some of them are simply force of habit. For example, I always shoot RAW, I never use Auto ISO, I never use Spot Metering, 99% of time it is Aperture priority, simple things like that. I would not even attempt discussing them, that's the way I like them. You may call me limited, I am perfectly fine with it.

I haven't called you limited, but if it's just 'that's my preference because it suits me' there's not much anyone else can take from that. Their preferences could be different and their's no reason to think that they might be better or worse. So coming back to the thing being discussed here, whether or not auto ISO is a good idea, there's no reason to think that what you choose illuminates the discussion.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same.

Not sure what there is to discuss. That they are not different? Or, why are they different?

I was thinking about how they are different, which might lead to understanding whether they are significantly different.

I think you may need a better partner for your discussion. I am satisfied with simple: They are different.

The real point I think is that for you 'it's my personal preference' is a satisfactory reason for doing things, but as above it's not something anyone else would be interested in.

It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise,

Actually, the reverse is true.

Nope. Higher ISO settings in general produce less noise. That's a demonstrable fact. It's why cameras are engineered as they are.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

 

[alfn]

Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.

Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.

I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

Correct. It is the effective sensitivity of the camera and should be referred to as the ISO sensitivity setting.

ISO says it is an 'exposure index'. The latest version defines 'photographic sensitivity' which is 'general term for numerical values based on the exposure at the focal plane of a DSC which produces a specified DSC image signal level, such as the standard output sensitivity or recommended exposure index'.

In other words the effective sensitivity of the camera (DSC).

The standard says exactly this about terminology:

'Note 1 to entry: In practise, the photographic sensitivity is often called the "sensitivity" or the "camera sensitivity". It is sometimes called the "ISO sensitivity", for historical reasons that date from ISO standards for photographic film cameras.

So the photographic sensitivity [of the camera] is often referred to as simply sensitivity or camera sensitivity for historical reasons. That makes sense when one is dealing with photographic standards created over a long period. Consistency is the whole point of standards.

So, they don't say that it 'should' be referred to as the ISO sensitivity, they say that it is sometimes called that.

Or camera sensitivity or simply sensitivity. All as defined by the ISO standard. Thus ISO sensitivity.

All the rest of your post is an elaborate fantasy created by you to justify calling the ISO sensitivity setting anything other than what it is.

Bob's comments are quite correct.

If you are interested in a much more complete description read this CIPA DC-004 document which gives a complete definition of SOS & REI as well including calculations

https://www.google.com/search?q=cip...msung-nf-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

If you look at your camera you will find the setting is labelled ISO not CIPA, and both organisations agree that it is the sensitivity setting.

Tautology, eh? Some people seem to revel in it.

 

[bobn2]

If there had been a technical reason for calling it 'ISO sensitivity' they would have given it, in fine detail and with formulae that explained it. The very fact that they say that it is for historical reasons means that there is no technical reason, but a historical one.

So we are all agreed: the so-called ISO control is the sensitivity setting.

It's not a 'so-called ISO control'. It is an ISO control, which also has side-effects not mandated in the standard. But all of the ISO controls that I know of do actually control the ISO.

My issue with calling it a 'sensitivity setting' is that it's a very misleading term, with respect to what the control actually does. Most people, when they encounter a technical term don't go and read the documents defining that term, they take a shot at what is meant by from a more generalised view of the meaning of the word. If you take that approach to the use of the word 'sensitivity' with respect to ISO you end up completely misunderstanding what ISO is and how it operates. This has led to a whole load of web 'experts' taking this approach and producing material that is just plain wrong.

For instance, this is quite typical:

What is ISO in photography?

ISO refers to your camera’s sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive your camera sensor becomes, and the brighter your photos appear.

...

By increasing the ISO, you make your photos brighter.

That’s why ISO is important.

In other words, ISO works alongside the other two exposure variables – aperture and shutter speed – to determine the overall brightness level of an image.

and so on. That's one of very many.

 

[Marek M]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

I think you overestimate me. I use simple processes, some of them are simply force of habit. For example, I always shoot RAW, I never use Auto ISO, I never use Spot Metering, 99% of time it is Aperture priority, simple things like that. I would not even attempt discussing them, that's the way I like them. You may call me limited, I am perfectly fine with it.

I haven't called you limited, but if it's just 'that's my preference because it suits me' there's not much anyone else can take from that. Their preferences could be different and their's no reason to think that they might be better or worse. So coming back to the thing being discussed here, whether or not auto ISO is a good idea, there's no reason to think that what you choose illuminates the discussion.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same.

Not sure what there is to discuss. That they are not different? Or, why are they different?

I was thinking about how they are different, which might lead to understanding whether they are significantly different.

I think you may need a better partner for your discussion. I am satisfied with simple: They are different.

The real point I think is that for you 'it's my personal preference' is a satisfactory reason for doing things, but as above it's not something anyone else would be interested in.

It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise,

Actually, the reverse is true.

Nope. Higher ISO settings in general produce less noise. That's a demonstrable fact. It's why cameras are engineered as they are.

Oh boy, I regret posting in this thread.

 

[bobn2]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

I think you overestimate me. I use simple processes, some of them are simply force of habit. For example, I always shoot RAW, I never use Auto ISO, I never use Spot Metering, 99% of time it is Aperture priority, simple things like that. I would not even attempt discussing them, that's the way I like them. You may call me limited, I am perfectly fine with it.

I haven't called you limited, but if it's just 'that's my preference because it suits me' there's not much anyone else can take from that. Their preferences could be different and their's no reason to think that they might be better or worse. So coming back to the thing being discussed here, whether or not auto ISO is a good idea, there's no reason to think that what you choose illuminates the discussion.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same.

Not sure what there is to discuss. That they are not different? Or, why are they different?

I was thinking about how they are different, which might lead to understanding whether they are significantly different.

I think you may need a better partner for your discussion. I am satisfied with simple: They are different.

The real point I think is that for you 'it's my personal preference' is a satisfactory reason for doing things, but as above it's not something anyone else would be interested in.

It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise,

Actually, the reverse is true.

Nope. Higher ISO settings in general produce less noise. That's a demonstrable fact. It's why cameras are engineered as they are.

Oh boy, I regret posting in this thread.

Do you? Why is that? Are you not interested in discussing photographic technique and the reasons behind it?

 

[bobn2]

Neither do I. Pictures lack consistency.

That's because you aren't using it properly. If you have a method of exposure setting with manual ISO, then there is an analogue for auto ISO that will achieve exactly the same results, but you need to think it through. In general though, it pairs most easily with a raw workflow.

I think I'll stay where I am. And I do RAW only.

Well, of course it's your affair how you work, but it would be interesting to discuss the reasoning behind it.

Pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same, if there were, there would be no upper limit to ISO.

Maybe we could discuss the ways that you think pictures taken at different ISOs are not the same. It's true that higher ISO settings tend to produce less noise, but in the scale of things that is a minor effect, and certainly overwhelmed by the noise implications of your exposure decisions.

The only time I experienced auto ISO failure in actual photography with light meter is when shooting Pano and there are noticeable exposure variations in the clouds and or buildings.

If you're shooting M with auto ISO you shouldn't get exposure variations. You might well get lightness variations. And yes, I would (and do) fix the ISO in that situation, though some pano tools will fix up the variations.

Another situation is when shooting difficult ballet stage light where fixed ISO is usually more appropriate, probably with manual exposure.

I can see that one too. The problem with stage lighting is that the meter won't necessarily catch all the light sources, set the ISO too high and you end up clipping some of the lights. It's one of the situations where ISO invariance is a real boon.

 

[tony field]

Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.

Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.

I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

Correct. It is the effective sensitivity of the camera and should be referred to as the ISO sensitivity setting.

ISO says it is an 'exposure index'. The latest version defines 'photographic sensitivity' which is 'general term for numerical values based on the exposure at the focal plane of a DSC which produces a specified DSC image signal level, such as the standard output sensitivity or recommended exposure index'.

In other words the effective sensitivity of the camera (DSC).

That depends entirely on what you mean by 'effective sensitivity'. It requires an unusual interpretation of the word 'sensitivity' to make it mean the same as ISO's own word salad. Even more so when you actually read the standard. For instance the 'specified DSC signal level' under the recommended exposure index is 'the arithmetic mean focal plane exposure, expressed in lux-seconds, recommended by the DSC provider'. That is, the 'specified signal level' is whatever the camera manufacturer chooses to recommend.

I think you'll have a hard time finding any other 'sensitivity' defined as 'whatever the manufacturer recommends'. The 'standard output sensitivity' is little better. That says that the specified signal level is 'equal to 461/1000 x Omax, where Omax is the maximum output value of the digital system'. So, even if one thinks that 'sensitivity' is synonymous with 'responsivity', this is a standard where the 'effective sensitivity' might be changed simply by changing the value of a number (Omax) in software.

Simply, this definition of 'sensitivity' aligns with no other usage of the word in a technical domain.

The standard says exactly this about terminology:

'Note 1 to entry: In practise, the photographic sensitivity is often called the "sensitivity" or the "camera sensitivity". It is sometimes called the "ISO sensitivity", for historical reasons that date from ISO standards for photographic film cameras.

So the photographic sensitivity [of the camera] is often referred to as simply sensitivity or camera sensitivity for historical reasons. That makes sense when one is dealing with photographic standards created over a long period. Consistency is the whole point of standards.

It also makes sense if you're looking for agreement on a committee of diverse interests and views.

So, they don't say that it 'should' be referred to as the ISO sensitivity, they say that it is sometimes called that.

Or camera sensitivity or simply sensitivity. All as defined by the ISO standard. Thus ISO sensitivity.

They say precisely what they say, that it is sometimes called sensitivity, not that it should be called sensitivity.

All the rest of your post is an elaborate fantasy created by you to justify calling the ISO sensitivity setting anything other than what it is.

If there had been a technical reason for calling it 'ISO sensitivity' they would have given it, in fine detail and with formulae that explained it. The very fact that they say that it is for historical reasons means that there is no technical reason, but a historical one.

So we are all agreed: the so-called ISO control is the sensitivity setting.

For a given exposure, I think it is plausible to call the ISO a camera sensitivity setting only for camera output JPEG images in reference to the 18% grey point. This is a reasonable approximation to traditional views and for historic reasons (think along the lines of ISO & ASA & DIN)

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[alfn]

If there had been a technical reason for calling it 'ISO sensitivity' they would have given it, in fine detail and with formulae that explained it. The very fact that they say that it is for historical reasons means that there is no technical reason, but a historical one.

So we are all agreed: the so-called ISO control is the sensitivity setting.

It's not a 'so-called ISO control'. It is an ISO control, which also has side-effects not mandated in the standard. But all of the ISO controls that I know of do actually control the ISO.

So you believe the ISO sensitivity setting on one's camera actually controls the International Standards Organisation?

This is getting too surreal for my liking. Time to bail out while I still have a firm grasp on reality. Live long and prosper, Bob.

 

[sybersitizen]

So we are all agreed: the so-called ISO control is the sensitivity setting.

We are not all agreed.

I have several cameras with ISO controls. When I change those controls, not a single one of those cameras becomes more (or less) sensitive. But I'm not denying that it can happen in some cameras under some circumstances. Maybe that's the kind you have.

 

[tony field]

Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range? I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.

Depends on the camera, subject, photographer just like anything else.

There ARE cameras with even smaller sensors designed for ultra high ISOs (Canon made/make a few mainly video cameras both FF and smaller sensor that go to ISOs in the millions).

I am more worried about DR at higher ISOs than noise and some cameras are better at higher ISO than others and the other way around also applies.

Native ISO range is very useful for me a lot of the time.

I had thought "native" iso was the iso of the sensor to which no gain was applied. So it was a single number and not a "range".

This is a commonly put about idea, but is essentially wrong-headed.

ISO is not 'gain'

Correct. It is the effective sensitivity of the camera and should be referred to as the ISO sensitivity setting.

ISO says it is an 'exposure index'. The latest version defines 'photographic sensitivity' which is 'general term for numerical values based on the exposure at the focal plane of a DSC which produces a specified DSC image signal level, such as the standard output sensitivity or recommended exposure index'.

In other words the effective sensitivity of the camera (DSC).

The standard says exactly this about terminology:

'Note 1 to entry: In practise, the photographic sensitivity is often called the "sensitivity" or the "camera sensitivity". It is sometimes called the "ISO sensitivity", for historical reasons that date from ISO standards for photographic film cameras.

So the photographic sensitivity [of the camera] is often referred to as simply sensitivity or camera sensitivity for historical reasons. That makes sense when one is dealing with photographic standards created over a long period. Consistency is the whole point of standards.

So, they don't say that it 'should' be referred to as the ISO sensitivity, they say that it is sometimes called that.

Or camera sensitivity or simply sensitivity. All as defined by the ISO standard. Thus ISO sensitivity.

All the rest of your post is an elaborate fantasy created by you to justify calling the ISO sensitivity setting anything other than what it is.

Bob's comments are quite correct.

If you are interested in a much more complete description read this CIPA DC-004 document which gives a complete definition of SOS & REI as well including calculations

https://www.google.com/search?q=cip...msung-nf-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

If you look at your camera you will find the setting is labelled ISO not CIPA, and both organisations agree that it is the sensitivity setting.

Tautology, eh? Some people seem to revel in it.

Don't get confused with labels. SOS & REI are the same meaning in both documents.it turns out that Japanese cameras must report camera settings in either or both SOS & REI and is compatible with ISO standards.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Is extended iso range the only camera spec more useless than native iso range?

Useless to you, specifically, does not generalize to "useless to all" or even "useless to most".

I doubt any photographer is going to think an iso of 100k on aps sensor has an acceptable amount of noise.

I'm guessing that you're fairly new to photography, and unfamiliar with art in general. I've always enjoyed pointalism in painting and sketch work (Seurat, van Gogh, Luce) and I occasionally do pointalist sketches or engravings on glass. I've done all sorts of high ISO film photography, with various films and developers.