>>3892938>2007 cameraIt's valid still today.
>No, it uses base 20, pic relatedThey use base 10 for the axis scale, pic related.
And multiplying the logarithm by a number doesn't change its base. It's still log10.
>All this proved was that raising iso always gives worse performance. Getting half a stop better noise by throwing away 4 stops isn't a good deal. You only throw 4 stops if you were at the saturation point.
>Why are you so set on stacking such easily proven L's today? Your Google broke?Whatever helps you sleep at night.
>Show me one piece of objective evidence that correlates with that. So far you've just repeatedly failed...I already did, lol. Are you going to ignore that the dark phone looks way better while the highlights didn't look noticeably worse?
>Oh sure, I did reverse image search it, and it agreed with me too, hence why the graph shows higher snr at lower iso...The only reason you think it agreed with you is because you only read the first sentences.
