So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR? That objective, by nature, requires repeating the same sentiment (Canon's DR sucks) over and over again on a forum. That action, by nature, is one that many people on this forum find very irritating. Naturally, those people will eventually voice their displeasure.
What I don't understand is that when people happy with their Canon gear voice their displeaser, the pro-DR guys all of a sudden start complaining that they're being bullied, and complain that they're being personally insulted? I'm not saying that personal insults are OK, but seriously, what do you expect? Should I go stand in front of a church, proclaim the virtues of Islam, and expect a welcoming response?
The notion that the pro-DR guys are innocent angels in all this, and only the brainwashed happy Canon guys are throwing the insults, is absolutely ridiculous. You must have missed the posts where the DR advocates state their intentions of saving the anti-DR guys from their ignorance, showing them the error of their ways, and showing them how much happier they'd be if that had equally high standards of IQ and DR. That must constitute objective commentary in your book.
So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR?
I think that if history proves anything with regard to this particular issue -- it proves that this strategy has been ineffective. Apparently this DR thing isn't producing enough market churn to raise Canon's interest in making a change. One guy hit the nail on the head, I think, by saying something like "Just because sensor B is only 90% as good as sensor A, doesn't mean sensor B sucks (or is even close to unusable).
That's really the crux of the debate isn't it.
A handful of people (and it really is just a handful) are extremely dissatisfied with one metric
Unfortunately for them, it is a metric that doesn't seem to be a major concern for most other photographers. The majority say, yes, they'd be happy with a little more dynamic range. But, it's not the major factor we consider when selecting a camera.
Repeating the same points over and over again, berating others for their failure to consider this a top priority, playing the martyr when others disagree and voice that disagreement, predicting the imminent doom of a multi-national company unless they address this one metric and basically discounting every other innovation the company produces as being insignificant in comparison to this one, small, metric – all of these strategies have proven ineffective. Yet, they persist because now, it's no longer about that metric, it's become a religious crusade.
But, something that gets ignored in these diatribes is that there are a whole host of other features that many of us would like to see adopted and we may feel just as intensely about those metrics as the "Dynamic Rangers" feel about theirs.
Interestingly, the Dynamic Rangers seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of any of these others metrics.
One small example: when the specifications for the 7DII came out, I expressed disappointment that it failed to incorporate touch screen technology. I was informed by the most verbose of the Dynamic Rangers that that was not a professional feature, was useless and essentially implied I was an idiot for thinking it should be included.
There are similar dismissive comments from the Dynamic Rangers regarding wifi implementation in the 7DII.
This isn't a post about the relative merits of either feature, but rather an illustration of how the Dynamic Rangers seem unwilling to accept that any other metric might be worthwhile and that several of them are more than willing to toss about disparaging comments when someone brings up other features.
Have I tried to turn every thread into a discussion of touch-screen technology? Have I tried to raise wi-fi with every post I write?
No, because I understand something that the Dynamic Rangers seem incapable of grasping: Camera manufacturers spend millions on research in order to target their products to specific markets. If a feature I want doesn't make it, it is because the demand isn't yet great enough.
Whining on forums isn't going to change that. Rational, reasonable explanations that can persuade others can be effective over time, but when it comes to dynamic range, the rational, reasonable explanations have all been written and if it hasn't changed anyone's mind by this point, one more post of biblical proportions is unlikely to make a difference.
At some point, it's time to just give it a rest. Maybe in six months, a year or two years, the issue will bubble to the surface and a majority will demand change. Or more likely, Canon will make incremental improvements, the perceived gap will shrink and it will even less of a concern to the majority.