While I've seen the D3, I haven't seen results from those cameras, but have any real comparisons been made? I'm talking about side by side comparisons in the real world, so that as many variables as possible can be ruled out. We can't judge comparisons, if we don't know the conditions at the time of taking. Simple comparisons of unrelated images is simply unscientific and less meaningful than lab tests under artificial conditions (where you can of course control things at least). I'm not saying that there aren't differences, but it's very easy to jump to conclusions. It's very rare, that reviews make direct side by side comparisons, taking near identical shots. Even when you do make comparisons though, Nikon and Canon cameras seem to have different compromises, aiming for more latitude at opposite ends of the spectrum. I've seen too many cases when I was doing research, of papers that put a spin on something that wasn't actually true, when looked at in detail or repeated.I've said before, that lab tests are pretty meaningless, unless they reflect the real world, after all, as photographers, we are judged by what we achieve, not by what could be theoretically achieved.
But they do! Have you seen what a heavily pulled D7000/D3x ISO 100 shots looks like compared to one from 50D or 5D2?
Flake mentioned the use of HDR and grad filters. As a landscape photographer, I know that even with an extra stop of DR, there is no way that I could capture most scenes without using grad filters, unless I make some compromises. In fact, photography is all about making compromises, that is what sets the greats apart from the merely good.
But once you are into nearly 3 stops of usably better DR then it does start to make much more a difference in what things you can capture or not.
Three stops is obviously a different matter, but that is a huge jump, in excess of 30%, so is it realistic?
It's not much use having an extra stop of DR, if your meduim of choice can't show it. I suspect that you'd need an expensive Spectraview type monitor to see any differences.
Not at all. In fact most of them are IPS and don't even have very huge contrast ratio compared to some cheap SPVA screens. But it makes a big difference either way.
And seriously if Canon had 3 usable stops better DR like it did back when, compared to Nikon, would all of you still be finding every excuse in the world why we don't need it and who cares??
Why would anyone, most of all a Canon user, NOT want Canon to fix this up???
I care because I have Canon equipment.
I didn't say that I wouldn't want more DR, quite frankly, any photographer would always be looking for improvements, whatever they are. However, the type of photography I do would probably benefit more from other improvements, such as improved ISO sensitivity (i.e. cleaner). I can already compensate mostly for shortcomings in DR, but noise at higher ISO isn't as easy and if I want to shoot wildlife around dusk, that is a priority for me. Also, some were offering film as having more DR than Canon's sensors, which certainly isn't the case for slide film and is debatable for negative film. If we want improvements, then we have to be realistic in what we compare it too.