>>3569783>Remember when no one on the board could tell the difference between MFT and FF shots when challenged? >1200px1200px
>Ever notice how the autist(s) that constantly masturbate about ISOs that no one ever uses Gosh no one uses ISO 6400.
>but only at 300% zoom and even then it's not even a big difference? >not a big differencenot a big difference
>Well, that's the Weber-Fechner Law at work.>Human perceptive faculties tend to register noticeable stimulus differences logarithmically. Uh...that's not exactly what the law says: "Simple differential sensitivity is inversely proportional to the size of the components of the difference; relative differential sensitivity remains the same regardless of size."
>What this means for photography, specifically when comparing camera systems, is that it takes roughly a 10x difference OH HOLD ON. So you're telling me that you think logarithmic always means power of 10? Oh...oh you sweet summer child. From your article: "The eye senses brightness approximately logarithmically over a moderate range (but more like a power law over a wider range),[citation needed] and stellar magnitude is measured on a logarithmic scale."
And what is that scale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude"Consequently, a difference of 1.0 in magnitude corresponds to a brightness ratio of 5√100 or about 2.512. The brighter an object is, the lower its magnitude. For example, a star of magnitude 2.0 is 2.512 times brighter than a star of magnitude 3.0"
People can tell the difference in stellar magnitude at 2.512x. People can tell the difference in photographic stops at 2x. And people can tell the difference in fractions of photographic stops. Weber-Fischner doesn't mean what you think it means.
This might help you better understand logarithms: :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm 