David we have had our discussion a long time, but not here.
The real thing is that people do not know the benefits of large DR and the work in raw converters and photoshop.
It is like the 10000 hours I have been spending in the lab and make copies, and now I do not know the words for after light/ give more lights in some areas, shadow the light and make a cast, mask etc with different tools and with my hands. Or handle a 400iso film and expose it after 200iso and cut the developments in minutes to get a contrasty motive softer developed and then to be able to reproduce this contrasty motive with the right hardness of photo paper (I think you know what I mean)
The same you can do by scanning a film and some after work or with a digital camera and raw, the basic is that we have no clipping in the high lights and in a contrasty motive, this is way a large DR means a lot
Yea I have seen his video before – but, at the end of the day, who cares if you can do stuff like this if you don’t produce art with it. There is a huge difference between demonstrating what the technology can do and actually demonstrating that you can do something artistically compelling with that technology. It is that second part that we never seem to see (or very seldom see). The proponents of this marvelous sensor technology would be better served by putting up compelling examples of stuff that can be done with it (that cannot be done with any other of the options out there) rather than the contrived stuff they tend to post. Unfortunately, they cannot because there really aren’t any (or at least far, far fewer than the low-ISO, wide DR fan club would want us to believe). If you remove the artificial limitations that these guys usually like to lay down (don’t want to carry my tripod, have to get it in a single shot, etc.) there aren’t too many shots that you cannot nail with any of the latest top notch gear by working around whatever limitations it has (and a competent photographer will do this). I don’t see the gear as a serious limitation.
To me, the primary benefit of the technology is that if you have a bad exposure for whatever reason, you can lift the shadows a bit and fix it. You clearly have more leeway in this regard with the later Nikon gear than the Canon stuff and that is mainly due to the pattern noise, not the random noise based DR difference (that DxO measures). This is a huge benefit for the Nikon gear; however, in fairness to Canon, I have never really had a problem with their equipment for any real world work I have done.
you can not be serious-are you. why then discuss large DR or a lens resolution from different lenses?IF its not matter?
what are you saying?
I am completely serious and I think that the post was reasonably clear. I think that a lot of people are making a much bigger deal out of this than it deserves, making mountains out of mole-hills IMO. I think I was pretty clear in my last bit where I, myself, thought the real benefit lies. And, yes, I am sure that the same is true for a lot of the discussions about lens resolution but I tend not to participate in those (not sure why -- they are probably interesting as well).
One of the things I notice about photography forums (and other things like High End audio, Apple vs. PC, iPhone vs. Galaxy3… the list goes on) is people tend to get wound up in the minutia to the point that it becomes almost religion. I don’t expect those that are religious regarding the DR differences to agree with me but perhaps some others will find value in the commentary.
I am starting to agree with the popcorn guys though, but I think in my case, I'll go for a martini :-).