Originally Posted by Bear
Could be a marketing issue as the press loves to find something to add an air of objectivity to the reviews. Is high ISO performance the new pixel count I wonder. I find it somewhat amusing that there are some people who will freely admit they never ever loaded anything faster than 400 ISO film into their cameras back in the day will choose a DSLR on the basis of the noise performance at 3200 !
I shoot a lot of low light stuf at 1600 and above and always have done - concerts and the like and find that the noise performance I get from my E3 far outstrips anything I could get from film. It is just not an issue. We would all like better noise performance at higher ISO's just because mostly but the real issue is the one you identify - DR - 2 or three stops better DR would be a huge bonus.
Yeah the DR thing is the main killer for me, ( it's OK but you just have to be a lot more carefull, this means more time) but I'm sure with time this will get sorted. Re the Film thing, I only used ISO 50 & 100. I used faster films when shooting B&W, And I used Medium format too. Digital has brought out a whole new way of working, my style has changed a considerable amount. We can now do things not possible with film, especially in social photograhy such as weddings. Hi ISO performance is very very handy at weddings, but that is only a small part of what we as a whole use our cameras for.