5DS Coming this Spring!?

[conropl]

Does anyone really rely on expanded ISO? A couple of years ago I read an interview with a Canon designer that said that the camera ISO ratings were designed to a max and min that provided a defined line of acceptability in IQ. The expanded ISO was not within acceptable standards... it was implied expanded ISO was a marketing ploy, but he stated it is not intended to be used for acceptable images. He has probably since be fired, but the statement is essentially correct. I would not use expanded ISO as a measure of anything short of marketing strategy, and how far the company is willing to lure (deceive) unsuspecting customers in.

They *have* to have improved something, and I think that its got to be noise and DR.

I hope you are correct, and this is a shift in what Canon sees as the minimum IQ standards for max ISO ratings (be it DR and noise, or just noise). Otherwise it does seem to be a hard sell for anyone other than for those looking for higher resolution to print very large or crop heavily (saving on the cost of larger focal length glass or when limited to how close you can get). This seems to focus in on landscape and wildlife, but I still think those sets of customers is going to be further segmented by those that still want the higher ISO capability.

Pat

[HDNitehawk]

Does anyone really rely on expanded ISO?

Pat

I can only remember one time, I went to look at a project that was in a basement with no light. No flash light either.
The naked eye I couldn't see, so I took pictures at the highest ISO with my 35mm f/1.4L.
Reviewed them later on the computer.

I suppose expanded ISO may have its use, but making great images isn't one of them.