Quote: Marc Sabatella: I agree with where are going with this, but would like to make a few distinctions here. First, when we speak of how important high ISO is to us, there is both the question of how *often* we use it, and also how *good* the results need to be. And there is the matter of how much we are willing to pay for incremental improvement after that basic minimum threshold.
I agree, both quantity & quality are in the equation.
Quote: Marc Sabatella: In my case, I shoot high ISO a *lot*. Maybe 50% or more of my shooting is 1600 or above, because I do so much concert and indoor candid photography. I'd also say that performance is quite important to me in that it needs to exceed a certain level that pretty much rules out the small sensor cameras. Which is too bad, because, sure, I'd love a pocketable superzoom that would work for me. I'm willing to pay rather more for a DSLR to get above the threshold I want to reach. But beyond that, the differences between APS-C cameras is largely irrelevant to me, and FF just isn't worth the cost in dollars or size/weight.
Absolutely Mark, for you, the APS-c sensor is probably returning more $$ value than it is for %99 of the users out there. Clearly, your entry into DSLRs was well-thought out. Your discussion makes me think of all the DSLR users out there who would be just as well served with P & S cameras. I really miss my super--zooms, which made so much more room in my hiking bag for necessities.
Quote: Marc Sabatella: So I'm in a position of saying high ISO performance is extremely important to me, and yet it also doesn't really serve as much of a differentiator within the world of DSLR's.
I would benefit from a re-wording of this sentence, before I respond--do not want to misinterpret.
Quote: Marc Sabatella: If I might make yet another car analogy, decent high ISO performance is like brakes. I absolutely, positively need this, and would no more buy a camera with unacceptable high ISO performance than I would a car without brakes. But beyond that, brakes are brakes to me, and I really couldn't care less about differences in braking between cars - they're all good enough for me.
Analogical thinking is an awesome tool & I welcome the car metaphor into the discussion. To be fair though, I think brakes is off a little--here is why. All people who own a car must have brakes in order to use the car. However, all people who own a DSLR camera do not need High ISO in order to use the camera. I am not trying to nit pick--please do not be offended. But I think a better metaphor is in order here. For example. all cars need a steering system, but they do not all need a amplified power assist. And really, in the end, turning up ISO is really amplifying the sensor's sensitivity to noise. Turning up the hydraulic pressure is really turning up the wheel's sensitivity to force.
And when it comes to safety, it seems brakes cannot be good enough. If this were not true, we would still have drum brakes in front & rear of all cars. People value safety in their cars. And ABS brakes take that safety factor to an even higher level.
Quote: Marc Sabatella: But beyond that, the differences between APS-C cameras is largely irrelevant to me, and FF just isn't worth the cost in dollars or size/weight.
I could not agree more with the above statement.
Last edited by Jewelltrail; 04-10-2010 at 09:02 PM.