D7000 replacement in April...

[neuroanatomist]

Seriously?!?  This is how you think?
Then I think you do not understand the whole concept of artistic intent - which is just fine since you are defending using tools that limit artistic expression.
Some of us prefer to work with hardware with less limitations to provide us with a greater latitude of creativity.
Ultimately, it seems to be this is what it comes down to; some of us want to manipulate our images and some of you are happy with them out of the camera.  Artists vs snapshot documentarians.

DING!

Ahhhh...so, you're saying that if one is an 'artist', one must be using a Nikon camera with a Sony sensor, and if one is using a Canon camera with its unbearably poor DR, one is capable of merely 'taking snapshots'.

Is that ringing in your ears making it hard for you to think, or are you really intending to be that pompous and insulting?

[CarlTN]

I would like to see Aglet's best photo work, so I can learn from a true master.  Does he have photos online anywhere?  I think I've seen Mikael's best work, and it is lacking.  Mikael, you should visit England, they have nicer landscapes.

As for underexposing to get highlights...you're still limiting the number of bits at the dark end, are you not?  So what if there's less noise with the D800?  I could post some shots I've done where I've lifted underexposures by 3 or 4 stops with my 5 year old crop camera, and was able to get something usable...sure it has some banding noise (only used CS5).  But what Mikael is showing here, to me looks like he's used NR on the Nikon image, and none on the Canon...which is why you all keep asking for the RAW files.  Most of those red splotches go away with a heavy amount of color NR, while also sliding the "color detail" slider down close to zero...and again that's just in ACR. 

A jpeg is only 8 bits.  How does DXO "print" their pictures?  Are they printing from a 16 bit or 32 bit file of some kind?  If so, how many different shades of ink are going into that print?  Not billions, right?

Frankly, the most reproduced "apparent" dynamic range I've seen, has been on my own home theater screen.  It's micro-glass beaded, and as long as you're near the plane of the projector, the highlights jump out at you in a very vibrant, natural way...and colors get very saturated.  You could never see that in a print on any kind of paper...maybe it could get close on aluminum, if it was lit with a very bright source at the correct temperature.  But the folks who will print your image on aluminum (that I know of)...only use either 8 bit jpeg, or 8 bit TIFF files. 

[DanielW]

I'd say moderators should close this thread, as it's no longer helpful in any way.
Daniel

[dlleno]

The thread is valuable IF we can look at the RAW files.  the evaluation results will be bantered about and argued, but frankly those of us who are interested in knowing what is truly important about them, and what can be learned (if anything) that helps Canon users understand their cameras better -- we will be able to parse the signal from the noise. 

in fact, we've been able to do just that all along.  its pretty easy to recognize clear, factual, important, and compelling information versus the sound of axes being ground

without the RAW files, though, I agree nuke the thread.