The point is that some of the supposed pure artists who eschewed all sorts of technical 'nonsense' were actually tech heads who did anything but and that is dangerous to make assumptions.
Never disagreed with you on that, bud
Like you said, the best photogs are often great artists and tech heads. However, there are LOTS of tech heads at the professional level who are very tech savvy, yet produce very mediocre images. So when people online start talking a bunch of trash without ever posting portfolios or a single sample image, I get a little suspicious
I haven't noticed that tech heads are any more often poor photographers anyway.
I take it you know a lot of pro photogs that you rub shoulders with and compete with on a daily basis? Next time you meet one in real life (not online), ask what his or her opinion is on Canon's poor DxO scores and Nikon's superior DR. I'd be surprised if they've ever even heard of DxO's sensor testing. Maybe I just hang out with a dumb group of photogs
I will also say that even if a given tech head is a terrible photographer, even then, so what? That has little bearing on anything even in the cases where it is true.
I beg to differ. If a photog with the chops to take advantage of the D800's DR, like smirkypants, encounters these situations in his own shooting, and uses that DR to improve his images, it's a legitimate issue. On top of that, he's using this DR advantage to generate additional revenue. That's as legit as it gets.
However, if you're some tech head (this isn't directed at you) that posts links to other people's
blogs as examples of why you personally
need 14 stops of DR, and anything less is unacceptable, you have no credibility. You're basically implying that if
you shot in X situation
, then you'd need 14 stops of DR, but since you don't here's a link to someone else's blog. This implies that these people are more in love with the idea of having more DR than actually needing more DR in real life shooting scenarios. That's kinda lame, don't you think?