I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR. Right.See, with focus, there's this ring around the middle of the lens that lets you adjust the focus. I've yet to find the ring around a Canon DSLR that lets you adjust DR.
dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours. Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line. I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved. This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.
For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.
For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.
Do the above statements reflect your personal experience with photography?
Or did you canvas other people?QuoteQuestion to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects? Do you MF everything?
Of my last 3 outings to take photos totalling 7 days of photography, MF comprised 100% of the shots I took and quite often I'm sitting there calculating the DoF that I want vs the aperture and zoom so that I know what distance to focus at. Now if Canon still had the A-DEP feature on their camera then I'd be using that, but it is gone.
In my lifelong outings to take photos totaling 100s of days, MF comprised 1% of the shots I took and quite often I am busy taking SHARP pictures, catching the moment, enjoying the setting and not wasting time over tables. Having said that, yes I would prefer better low ISO DR in Canon cameras.