BJL,
Us dumb guys we look at the Raws, and then our mind boggles, because basically one can set any ISO one wants and measurebate away,
the camera doesn't care.
So ok, I shouldn't have talked about "fake" ISO, I should have called the 100 setting a "fictitious ISO" because they're all fictitious. But then isn't "reality" just a shared fiction? Anyway, I'd still call ISO 35 here the "native" ISO but I'm not really sure why any more. Your criticism of my careless wording is probably justified anyway, I am getting dumb and superficial.
I'll give your post a careful reading when I have time, I promise, you put great effort into it and deserve a careful reading. I'm caught up in a hack and can't spare the concentration.
BTW, if you have an up to date version of the ISO:12232 standard or draft of same, could you email it to me please? edmundronald at gmail dot com.
Edmund
From persistent falsehoods like this about underexposure and fake ISO values, it seems that some people still do not understand that
---snip---
In summary, all I can see that Phase One is doing giving more highlight-protecting headroom than the ISO recommend minimum, while still using somewhat higher numerical raw levels than most or all cameras due to its greater raw file bit depth.