There is this constant hi iso issue. When i shoot on my D800 at 1600 ISO and then size that image to 22 meg, or 3000 pixels for an 8x12 print, it's the equal of my 5D Mk3, and superior to my 5D Mk2.
Would it matter if I shot at hi ISO's a lot anyway? The D800 lacks in hi iso DR to the Mk3 by maybe a quarter to half a stop max.
Apparently that is massive to these forum and worth lauding every time the subject comes up, but over 2 stops advantage at 100 ISO (and almost 3 with the D810) isn't worth it?
That's the kind of inconstant debating I'm referring to. Giving more weight to a small Canon advantage, and less weight to a larger Nikon advantage.
You are doing what so many people do here, taking things out of context. Is a half stop DR advantage worth anything?
Half a stop, maybe not. 2 stops? Definitely. That can make a difference between needing to use HDR to get the result you want and being able to do it with one image. So what difference would that make? The time (and thus cost) associated with producing images with the requisite level of detail in highlights and shadows.
If it takes me 1 hour to produce the image that I want with the detail that I want using a single shot and 2 hours to do the same image using HDR then the lower DR camera halves my output and thus income that I can earn from it. (I'm using 1 and 2 hours here figuratively.) And at ISOs less than 800, Nikon's latest cameras deliver that ability to save time and thus money.
So what do you do, take the f!!!!!g comment out of context, that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!.
If it takes you an hour to make an HDR you need to go on an Adobe course, even with a slow computer it takes 3-4 minutes to make a genuine 32 bit file with more than twice the DR of the Sony sensor in PS.