Much ado about image grain.

[Anbesol]

This conversation has led somewhere it didn't need to go. Nobody is trying to say that high ISO is bad, I did not want to say that. Reiterate: if conditions permit ISO 100, 200, or 400, are you inclined to shoot at 1600? That said, is it a good idea when comparing cameras to make the central, sole, solitary performance spec looked at 100% pixel peeped ISO 3200 image grain? I just think that there is a disparity between the hype and the reality of the technology. High ISO performance absolutely is important, but the hype surrounding it is often very unbalanced and one-dimensional.

The context of the original debate was some fan boy whining that Sony's new cameras (A330/A380) had terrible noise that was instantly visible even on the little LCD and was therefor clearly a horrible product. He compared it to a rebel which he quantified as 'better' because of its image grain. I provided a 100% crop sample from imaging resource with lab shots from both Sony and Canon bodies at ISO 800, 1600, and 3200 - put them together and the same dork who was so proud of his rebel couldn't tell which one was which. Heck, I doubt any body here would see the difference at 800 or 1600 either, I couldn't. Sadly this sort of hair splitting overhyping aspect in photo-consumer culture is all too common, I just think that the consumers need to be more conscientious of the dynamics of imaging technology, not so myopic.