Is the term ISO “totally fake”?

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
There has been a lot of hot air about the inconsistency of iso among manufacturers. There is real evidence, however, to the opposite. DxOMark has been measuring for years the actual iso values for tested sensors and plotting them against the stated ones. There is in fact a remarkable consistency among the top makers I have looked at, and a consistent pattern of deviations of the manufacturers stated from the actual, as seen in these two comparisons. Such remarkable agreement among these manufacturers suggest they are attempting to conform to the standards of ISO, and maybe even their tabulated values might be correct and there are systematic errors in DxOMark's measurements (figures courtesy of DxOMark).

View attachment 183356View attachment 183357

Digital cameras tend to overstate the ISO. What they call ISO 400 is really more like ISO 250-320. Film was often the opposite: what was actually sensitive at around ASA 80 would be sold as ASA 64. Of course, as film ages the sensitivity goes down, so that ASA 64 that was actually ASA 80 when it was factory fresh might only be ASA 72, or even ASA 64 by the expiration date.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,528
Digital cameras tend to overstate the ISO. What they call ISO 400 is really more like ISO 250-320. Film was often the opposite: what was actually sensitive at around ASA 80 would be sold as ASA 64. Of course, as film ages the sensitivity goes down, so that ASA 64 that was actually ASA 80 when it was factory fresh might only be ASA 72, or even ASA 64 by the expiration date.
The DxOMark data do consistently show that the makers consistently overstate the isos above 100, and understate at iso 50. DxO explains this in https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/ISO-sensitivity where the detail the measuring of iso values. They say manufacturers deliberately overstate the iso to avoid clipping of highlights. But, something smells when different manufacturers have exactly the same deviations from the DxO measurements. Do you know of any other independant measurements?
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,187
542
Digital cameras tend to overstate the ISO. What they call ISO 400 is really more like ISO 250-320.
They are supposed to round up to the nearest 1/3 stop. 321 should be reported as 400. 250 to 400 breaks both the ISO and the industry standard. I wonder if amateur comparisons are done consistency with proper conditions.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,510
1,885
The DxOMark data do consistently show that the makers consistently overstate the isos above 100, and understate at iso 50. DxO explains this in https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/ISO-sensitivity where the detail the measuring of iso values. They say manufacturers deliberately overstate the iso to avoid clipping of highlights. But, something smells when different manufacturers have exactly the same deviations from the DxO measurements. Do you know of any other independant measurements?
What bothers me is that in their "testing protocol" (https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/ISO-sensitivity) they don't specify the color temperature of their light source and even do explicitly mention LEDs. And then they also don't say what they do if the saturation of the different color channels happens at different exposures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 29, 2012
17,656
6,352
Canada
There are only 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

I was shooting today at ISO 11001000000000, way better than 11......

LOL
icon_mrgreen.gif
 
Upvote 0

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
487
419
Perhaps you are referring to photon counting cameras, that can resolve single photon events? Neither CMOS nor CCDs are in general photon counters. CMOS and CCDs both record the photo-electric charge, but are read out differently. CCDs are read out by moving the charges row- or column-wise to the detector edge where they are A/D converted, while CMOS are A/D converted on site. This is the main reason why CMOS are so much faster at reading out.

"CMOS and CCDs both record the photo-electric charge" - so this is the reason why they are called analog devices? Because charge is a continuous value, not a discrete one (0 or 1).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,510
1,885
"CMOS and CCDs both record the photo-electric charge" - so this is the reason why they are called analog devices? Because charge is a continuous value, not a discrete one (0 or 1).
As we can disregard number-phase uncertanty for photoelectrons, charge is a discrete value (a number of electrons). But counting electrons one by one is too slow for our goals, so the charge is measured by the voltage it creates on a given capacitor, and voltage is a continuous value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
487
419
What bothers me is that in their "testing protocol" (https://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols/ISO-sensitivity) they don't specify the color temperature of their light source and even do explicitly mention LEDs. And then they also don't say what they do if the saturation of the different color channels happens at different exposures.

Kit, if i remember well, the exposure meter is sensitive to different colours (measures different values for different colours), but not the sensor. Anyway, if you take photos of a grey-card (18%), this should not matter at all.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,510
1,885
Kit, if i remember well, the exposure meter is sensitive to different colours (measures different values for different colours), but not the sensor. Anyway, if you take photos of a grey-card (18%), this should not matter at all.
The sensor has 3 color channels saturating with some degree of independence: the ones corresponding to R, G, and B color filters of its Bayer pattern. You don't just "take photos of a grey card", you take photos of a grey card that is illuminated by light of a particular spectrum. If it's a bluish light (high color temperature), the B channel would normally saturate at a lower exposure (and the R channel would normally saturate at a higher exposure) than if it were a reddish light (low color temperature). If it's a LED light, with spectrum vastly different from the spectrum of an incandescent source, both the R and the B channels can saturate before the G channel does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

TAF

CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
491
158
Perhaps I am simply old (yet not even 60), but doesn't everyone use an 18% gray card and evaluate their new toy equipment to make certain they know how it really works before getting serious?

In the days of film, when I bought a new type of film, I would put a few 'known exposure' frames at the head of the roll and then follow the manufacturers instructions precisely, so that I would know how far it deviated from my expectations. I could then make appropriate adjustments, and I was all set. Since the film makers were VERY consistent within their own product, I rarely noticed any changes once I knew where I was.

But KODAK to Agfa to Fuji etc? And then within film types? Plenty of differences to account for.

At least our modern sensors don't change over time, at least not that I have noticed. Has anyone with a really early camera noticed any changes? We are exposing a silicon surface to light, which does cause changes on the microscopic level. And of course, the shutter could need eventually adjustment, but I haven't had a digital SLR that hasn't warranted upgrading within a short enough period of time (under 10 years so far) such that perhaps there isn't time for deterioration to set in.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
Perhaps I am simply old (yet not even 60), but doesn't everyone use an 18% gray card and evaluate their new toy equipment to make certain they know how it really works before getting serious?

In the days of film, when I bought a new type of film, I would put a few 'known exposure' frames at the head of the roll and then follow the manufacturers instructions precisely, so that I would know how far it deviated from my expectations. I could then make appropriate adjustments, and I was all set.
HA!

You have no idea how many pictures I have of my Kodak colour card! :)

Shooting in RAW and the ability to adjust white balance in post (at least to me) has to be the greatest leap forward in shooting with digital.......
 
Upvote 0
HA!

You have no idea how many pictures I have of my Kodak colour card! :)

Shooting in RAW and the ability to adjust white balance in post (at least to me) has to be the greatest leap forward in shooting with digital.......
Certainly one of the greatest. For me, instant gratification (not having to wait for film developing) would have to be the greatest leap forward of digital photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0