Well yes and no. It has been shown in another thread that LR is responsible for many of the "soft shot" complaints aboout the 5D3.
Hmm... skitron-- are you sure you aren't referring to the DPP problem where 'high quality' vs. 'high speed' changed the sharpness of the conversions? I don't remember hearing anything about LR...
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?
[list type=decimal]
[*]No, that's not lame, b/c some people are just into optimization
[*]You seem to speak of the knowledge of any given photographer as static. What if he/she's technique exceeds that of a lesser camera within a short period of time? Or what if the extended abilities of a better sensor help he/she realize a unique style to his/her photography that would've been otherwise unrealized? Or any of a # of other scenarios.
[*]Why require a so-called 'tech head' to produce photos to prove his/her discussion is legit? Why are you assuming he/she is bad until proven otherwise? It baffles me. I never walk into forums assuming someone is a bad photographer to begin with. Because when you assume, you run the risk of making an...
[*]For example I didn't assume you were a bad photographer just b/c you didn't care at all about the sensor tech talk way back a few weeks ago. And good thing I didn't: because I
love your work! You've found a way to make very well balanced images despite what looks like potentially difficult lighting in a # of your shots. It works for you. Great. The Canon system generally works for me as well. But I've run into a # of situations where I didn't feel comfortable printing large or raising shadows b/c I saw the banding all the way to the print. I could do without those scenarios, especially if it doesn't require me sacrificing too much else. That's what these discussions are about... optimizing what we work with. In fact, it's precisely b/c of these conversations that I was intrigued enough to do my own tests to see just how much better EXMOR sensors are over my entire 5D line (not all of us have the luxury of shooting Canon & Nikon interchangeably whenever we want, so this has been a learning experience for me). Actually, before doing many of these tests myself, I was disinclined to even believe DXO... my opinion was completely reversed when my own tests confirmed their observations... and these well-controlled tests happen to explain what people are seeing in real-world shooting scenarios. So, in my mind, these discussions are incredibly productive, b/c they solidify the reality of difference between these sensors (a reality that a lot of people were unwilling to accept when DXO initially published their findings). In fact, your statement to the effect of 'yes, now we all know that Nikon's sensors are better than Canon, accept it, move on'... I would argue that, yes, we do seem to know that now... but many more of us know & believe that precisely b/c of these blog postings & these discussions. Remember when LTRLI initially posted his assessment of the DR of the 5DIII? People just blasted him left & right, & boy am I glad I didn't. I questioned his methodology, b/c I also wanted to understand it. Now it seems generally accepted that his estimates were pretty much spot on. So, these discussions
can be incredibly productive in helping us all arrive at some objective conclusions. And if you don't care, just leave us be, you know? These tech head vs. photographer discussions are so
off-topic and are just adding noise to otherwise intelligent discourse.
[/list]
All the tech stuff can be learned, as can technique, but some people are just born with a natural gift for light and composition that can't be learned.
Ok if that's what you think... but keep in mind that's just your opinion
Like LTRLI said: your statement is another topic entirely. Nature vs. nurture is still hotly debated.
