Hi Gary,
I agree that “studios with light's”, and “landscapes with tripods aren't usually areas where high ISO is needed”. And I think that these are applications for which MF film is particularly well suited, in large part, on account of the resolution that this medium already offers, together with the minimal demands placed upon film sensitivity. But if comparable resolution, along with a more efficient work flow and instant review, are largely what MF digital has to offer, I am not that interested and would rather stay with film.
The possibility, however, of medium format photography at high ISO, opens up new worlds of photography that have, in large part, remained outside of the domain of MF film. Imagine a MF digital camera that could produce acceptable image quality at ISO 3200: a photo taken at a shutter speed of 1/500 sec would be comparable to that obtained with ISO 100 film at 1/15 sec, assuming constant aperture. Sports, wildlife and low light photography, to name a few, become viable; and reliance on the tripod is lessened. For me, it is precisely the ability obtain photos at high ISO that makes MF digital interesting; otherwise, it remains merely an expensive curiosity.
Best, Alan
Originally posted by Damn Brit I'm not sure High ISO is going to be such an issue with MF Alan. The shooting style is so different compared to DSLR and people will be using MF mainly for the increased file size and resolution. Studios with light's, landscapes with tripods aren't usually areas where high ISO is needed.