I loved Agfa's CT 18. But that was my eye and personal perception of the rendering of color. I could see the blue/green in the Ekta and the red/orange in Koda. The digital cameras seem produce a more natural color and if you want to give a little push with a tent, just move the slider a little left or right nudge.

The thing I miss most, and perhaps have just not discovered how to do it, is the little button that would stop the lens down so I could actually see the depth of field, no chart or computer needed. But I guess I date myself with terms like "Depth of Field." I need that Boogie button or what ever you call it today

Better get a cup of coffee, this is going to be long (and probably boring)

The first issue is what is meant by the term "useable." Useable is quite different for most people. I know people that think useable is what comes off a cell phone, and I think most of us will agree that cell phone photos are NOT useable. Next comes the issue of what is going to be done with this photo. If my goal is a 4x5 gift to my mother-in-law the definition of what is useable increases dramatically. If I am selling a photo for a 5 foot wall mural in a resort (as I did recently :-) ) then useable has a whole different definition. Most of use will probably be dealing with something in the range of 8x10 to 11x14 or something downsized for web view. If this is the case then many photographic issues will be well hidden due tot he size of the finished product.

Next, I will get to Moose Peterson's teddy bear project. This is a simple test where he suggests that you get a white, a black and a brown teddy bear in set them side by side and then shot them in various lighting conditions and at various ISO settings and then YOU decide which is best for you. What will you accept.

While I agree that the new cameras have excellent ISO renditions, there is a difference in the real clarity when the images are laid side by side (or for that matter even viewed side by side. My D800 produces an excellent (Ok fantastic image with detail in feathers, fur, whiskers, hair and textures when shot at lower ISOs---I can see this on a monitor. I will not hesitate to shoot at 800-1600 if the conditions warrant it. That is I must get this shot. If I had a snowy owl on the wing in fading light and I had to raise the ISO to get the right shutter speed to freeze the wings---up the ISO goes. But I will forever grouse that the quality of the finished photo is just not there. Will I keep the photo because of the uniqueness of the shot---yes. Will I proudly show it off to the general public as an example of my work---no.

To me, higher ISO photos look soft, even muddy, the crisp detail of the fine feathers, the richness of the coat, the detail in the meadow of flowers is just lacking. So I lug my tripod, wait for the wind to die down, use my expensive camera and lens to the limits of its capabilities and rejoice in my results.

Noise reduction software just softens the image. Maybe in little amounts, but it softens the image. This lets me get photos in my local high schools gym (with its g-d awful lights) and I can save the photos with noise reduction work in post. BUT--- the coaches and players all love the photos I take each year when they go to a neighboring school,that has better lights and I can reduce the ISO. So others, even non pros, CAN see a difference.

I greatly respect many of the photographers who have chimed in on this thread. I admire their work. But I respectfully disagree that high ISO produces the same quality image that a lower ISO produces. I am not married to ISO 200, but i will only very grudgingly raise mine to anything over 640, and the conditions and the subject better be worth the effort, or I will put my gear down and just enjoy the moment and the view. I don't have to get an image everytime I go out.

Hope you enjoyed your coffee, if not my ramblings. It is just my old dog opinions.
Do enjoy your high ISO settings. :-) :-) :-)

respectfully

Larry
(the Old Dog)