Just about anyone who knew what they were doing (and was actually trying to make a good, low noise image as opposed to a bad, noisy one) could have done a good job on this scene using either of these cameras. The fact that this guy did not only speaks for his choice of technique not for the quality of the equipment. These shots were made with a deliberate bias to make a specific point. However, in most of these “examples” it turns out to be a moot point because (in almost every case), not only could the image be made with either camera but a dramatically better image could be made with either camera if that were your goal (that is assuming you know how to use your camera correctly ).
Based on the examples continually put up, the number of real images that actually demand application of a single shot technique with serious shadow lifting must be pretty few and far between (otherwise we would not be continually entertained with the junk we are always shown). In this particular case the guy went to Mono Lake and Yosemite and he shows a whole series of magnificent images shot with the Canon gear. Apparently he could not find a real world example in that usually very challenging environment where the Canon gear was not up to the task.
While this particular parameter provides plenty of fodder for the endless sabre rattling over which brand is superior to the other, in the real world of practical photography (save for a small number of specific applications executed over a pretty narrow range of the ISO capability of the equipment) it appears to be pretty much a nonstarter. I would guess that you could probably type out the screen names for everyone that has ever participated in these types of threads on one side of a single sheet of A size paper which is probably not enough to produce noticeable movement on the Canon/Nikon market share needle.
Incidentally, the example we are discussing has to do with pattern noise which has nothing whatsoever to do with the thing the DxO curve is reporting.
Hi Dave, nice to run into one of the other screen names that participates in these threads
I would agree that nearly every High DR scene can be captured using techniques that don't require a High DR sensor. But one benefit of such sensor is workflow time savings. Here is a recent example where I shot a home interior for a friend for his real estate listing (using a D800). I wanted maximum IQ so I used two-shot blends for all the shots which had windows, to exhibit the woodsy setting outside his home. In this example it took me 20 minutes to manually blend the image, which I did in PS using layers and masks around the windows. For kicks I also performed the same exposure adjustment using a single image, which took me about 3 minutes. The latter has more noise than the two-shot blend but it's still perfectly usable even at the native 36MP resolution...and much more so at the resolutions the images were displayed at for the MLS listing. If you multiply this by 10 photos then the time savings can be significant...compared to either blends or interior strobe set ups.
Full 36MP Images:
Orig lower exposure image: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-pVMB6WN/0/O/i-pVMB6WN-O.jpg
Two-shot blend: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-VBVhdth/0/O/i-VBVhdth-O.jpg
One-shot HDR/shadow push: http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-DGKLj57/0/O/i-DGKLj57-O.jpg