Anything in a studio is shot at 100 ISO, and that counts for a lot of paid work in this, or any other world.Irrelevant, and a niche example: most photography is not done at 100 ISO in a studio, is it?
Since when did you not have full control over DR in a studio ? It's amusing to see zigzag's argument for "kills it" difference beginning to unravel.
Likewise posting an example of lighting failure and recovering a picture from it continues the gravitational pull on his arguments.
I still see nothing that couldn't be done on a 2005 5D never mind the latest generation Canon FF.
I take the likes of zigzags posts to be personally insulting; the inference is that those of us who are Canon low ISO shooters should know better, and are missing out big time, yet I know that the difference is much more marginal than these guys - and the DxO scores - make out.
Looking at Raw files at 50-100% on a high quality, calibrated screen is one thing. The final picture is another. I remember when the 5DII came out and I compared files with the 5D back to back, and thought: "hell - Ill never use the 5D again". But when it comes to the picture as a print on canvas, art paper or whatever, or viewed on a normal monitor, there is very little difference. Same with the D800. If your pleasure is in viewing files at 100% on a good monitor I suggest you get one.
As Neuro asked, and got a waffle response; do zigzag's clients see the difference ?