Why ISO 160? and not 200?

[pizzahut88]

Some other website have measured the M8 ISO, and discovered that
M8 ISO 160 = ISO 200
M8 ISO 320 = ISO 400
and 640 was actually 800.

Why did Leica decrease the figures?
This is a 1/3 stop less.
What are the implications?

If we relied on the internal meter, this is of no effect.
But why?

Am I missing something here?

 

[varjag]

There are in fact three standards of ISO measurement for digital sensors, all can produce different numbers but all are valid.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index

 

[boilerdoc2]

Beats me but the 160 is equal to 100 ISO in quality. Just superb. I think Leica wanted a higher sensitivity sensor for lower light performance. Not sure if they succeeded but it works!!!
Steve

 

[furcafe]

I assume it's similar to the reason why the same film can be used successfully @ different speeds, even though the manufacturer provides only 1 "official" speed.

There are in fact three standards of ISO measurement for digital sensors, all can produce different numbers but all are valid.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index

 

[Olsen]

You are absolutely right; M8 is ISO200 camera. M8 also better at restoring details in the shaddows. More so than many other cameras, like 1Ds II, which I can compare with. While burned out highlights are lost, - as on all other digital cameras. So, the first thing to do when starting using a new M8 is to set exposure compensation to -1/3.