Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Studio Tests

[StudentOfLight]

So Rishi, still no comment on why the 1DX-II was being compared to the A7R-II.

With DPReview's A7R-II review, the A7R-II was never compared it to the high-speed sports cameras (1D-X or the D4S)

i.e. No mention of the A7R-II's:
a) pedestrian continuous burst rate relative the CaNikon sports cameras
b) pathetic buffer performance relative to the CaNikon sports cameras
c) 12bit files limitation in continuous shooting relative to the CaNikon sports cameras

So why now compare the A7R-II to the CaNikon high-speed sports cameras? To me it seems like the Canon and Nikon Sports cameras have not caught up to the Sony A7R-II because they were always ahead.

I think you're unclear how the various parts of our reviews/assessment work.

First, yes it was compared: we had multiple pieces of content pointing out how the a7R II just didn't work for continuous shooting, and that you should turn to a Canon or Nikon DSLR for sports. There was even a piece by a 1D X shooter (our reviewer Jordan) who compared the a7R II at a football game in comparison to his 1D X experience for continuous AF and shooting.

Did you miss that?

Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers in that respect. Which is why we compared the a7R II to a Pentax 645Z, hardly in exactly the same league. Why don't you complain about how we made that unfair comparison?

The 1DX and D4S did not provide class-leading performance to use as a comparison point for the a7R II in image quality, which is why they weren't used as a comparison point.

Finally, the cons you listed for the a7R II- we listed all those in the a7R II review up front, over and over again. You're wondering why we didn't list a7R II continuous shooting cons in a 1D-X II image quality article?

Do you mean this article:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

While that article does not paint the prettiest picture of the A7R-II for sports shooting, it neither mentions the 1DX nor the D4s, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? The A7R-II was not being directly being compared to the sports cameras so why now... :

Here is your main review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii

... and I did't see one mention of the 1DX or the D4s in there, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? Interestingly, the A7R-II autofocus is compared to the 5DS-R :

Peak-action composition and focus are key aspects of an image, and the good autofocus and high burst rate of the D4s/1DX etc allows for reliably getting the ideal composition. They were the benchmark for continuous shooting so why were they not used as the peers against which the A7R-II must perform? Why were they not mentioned by name and their massive performance advantage quantified and noted?

 

[Loswr]

Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers in that respect.

Here is your main review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii

... and I did't see one mention of the 1DX or the D4s in there, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? Interestingly, the A7R-II autofocus is compared to the 5DS-R :

Peak-action composition and focus are key aspects of an image, and the good autofocus and high burst rate of the D4s/1DX etc allows for reliably getting the ideal composition. They were the benchmark for continuous shooting so why were they not used as the peers against which the A7R-II must perform? Why were they not mentioned by name and their massive performance advantage quantified and noted?

Bias.

But you knew that, didn't you?

 

[ritholtz]

Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers in that respect.

Here is your main review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii

... and I did't see one mention of the 1DX or the D4s in there, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? Interestingly, the A7R-II autofocus is compared to the 5DS-R :

Peak-action composition and focus are key aspects of an image, and the good autofocus and high burst rate of the D4s/1DX etc allows for reliably getting the ideal composition. They were the benchmark for continuous shooting so why were they not used as the peers against which the A7R-II must perform? Why were they not mentioned by name and their massive performance advantage quantified and noted?

Bias.

But you knew that, didn't you?

I don't know man. 1DX2 it is definitely lagging behind its peers.
For DR, It is lagging with a7r2 peer. It is lagging in high iso compared to D5 peer. In DPAF, it is lagging in dpaf tracking in stills compared to 80d peer. For 4k, it is under specked in terms of 4k features compared to a6300 peer. All of this is true. We can't say, DPR is wrong.

 

[Stu_bert]

Hi Rishi

Does Dpreview intend to provide similar studio tests for earlier cameras? It would help people that don't always buy the latest generation (second hand for instance), and also see how much gap there is say between the 1dx I I and a d4s, or a7r and mk ii ?

I'd also like to thank you for discussing the review here - you didn't have to, but I think open debate is good and appreciate the effort you make.

Thanks. All those desired comparisons you'd like to make are already available in our widget. Do you perhaps need a more thorough Instruction sheet for how to effectively use our tools? This is something we're working on by the way.

Oh, I didn't see those on the iPad, but I will recheck. Thanks for confirming.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Nonsense. Rishi unbiasedly picked a small patch where the SNR of the a7RII is 1/2-stop better. :

Your comment appears to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of how SNR analyses work. Biggest differences in ISO performance of similar-sized sensors tend to lie in midtones and darker tones, not bright tones where SNR is pretty much only determined by sensor size and efficiency, and where noise isn't as offensive to begin with.

You also can only analyze SNR for detail-less grey patches, but it's not clear you even know that.

Nor is it clear that I've written Matlab scripts to analyze SNR and other image parameters while developing methods to quantify immunofluorescence, and yet I have.

That's even worse: you're essentially then admitting to purposefully, willfully misleading the general readers here by suggesting that my SNR analysis of 18% or 10% grey is specious?

Let me rephrase: despite you knowing full well that the relative SNR advantage I pointed out for the a7R II would be maintained for any patch (save for shot-noise limited brighter tones, where SNR of cameras becomes asymptotic and converges to a value determined largely by sensor size only), you accuse me of deceivingly selecting one patch where there's an advantage, as if some other patch wouldn't show this advantage?

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that you're not only trolling me, but conning CR readers as well.

 

[9VIII]

SNR numbers are meaningless if visible results disagree.

Another example you could look at is the A6300 vs. the Fuji X-Pro 2. Those cameras are all but confirmed to use the same sensor and Fuji is practically working miracles with image quality off an APS-C sensor. Sony obviously has flaws somewhere in their image processing.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

SNR numbers are meaningless if visible results disagree.

Another example you could look at is the A6300 vs. the Fuji X-Pro 2. Those cameras are all but confirmed to use the same sensor and Fuji is practically working miracles with image quality off an APS-C sensor. Sony obviously has flaws somewhere in their image processing.

Yeah, SNR analyses are probably more useful as a sanity check for visual results, or for quick quantitative comparisons for midtone performance, dynamic range performance, etc. They're pretty hard to argue with, when done straight off the Raw undemosaiced data. Ideally you look at both visual and quantitative and see that they agree with one another. If they don't, it's time to dig a little deeper.

Rishi

 

[scyrene]

Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers in that respect.

Here is your main review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii

... and I did't see one mention of the 1DX or the D4s in there, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? Interestingly, the A7R-II autofocus is compared to the 5DS-R :

Peak-action composition and focus are key aspects of an image, and the good autofocus and high burst rate of the D4s/1DX etc allows for reliably getting the ideal composition. They were the benchmark for continuous shooting so why were they not used as the peers against which the A7R-II must perform? Why were they not mentioned by name and their massive performance advantage quantified and noted?

Bias.

But you knew that, didn't you?

I don't know man. 1DX2 it is definitely lagging behind its peers.
For DR, It is lagging with a7r2 peer. It is lagging in high iso compared to D5 peer. In DPAF, it is lagging in dpaf tracking in stills compared to 80d peer. For 4k, it is under specked in terms of 4k features compared to a6300 peer. All of this is true. We can't say, DPR is wrong.

Well... this is precisely the issue, isn't it? Each of those cameras lags behind the others in different aspects. A selection: the D5 lags behind the 1DxII in low ISO DR (apparently), 4K specs, and fps; the A7RII lags the 1DxII in fps and battery life; the A6300 lags the 1DxII in fps and battery life, etc etc. The way you've phrased it, the 1DxII sounds like it's the worst in everything compared to all these other models, but that's simply not true.

It's all about how you present the information. I don't dispute the data (I'm not an expert on it and haven't used any of these cameras, so I have to take it on trust to an extent), just have a slight problem with how it's being spun.

 

[tron]

Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers in that respect.

Here is your main review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii

... and I did't see one mention of the 1DX or the D4s in there, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? Interestingly, the A7R-II autofocus is compared to the 5DS-R :

Peak-action composition and focus are key aspects of an image, and the good autofocus and high burst rate of the D4s/1DX etc allows for reliably getting the ideal composition. They were the benchmark for continuous shooting so why were they not used as the peers against which the A7R-II must perform? Why were they not mentioned by name and their massive performance advantage quantified and noted?

Bias.

But you knew that, didn't you?

I don't know man. 1DX2 it is definitely lagging behind its peers.
For DR, It is lagging with a7r2 peer. It is lagging in high iso compared to D5 peer. In DPAF, it is lagging in dpaf tracking in stills compared to 80d peer. For 4k, it is under specked in terms of 4k features compared to a6300 peer. All of this is true. We can't say, DPR is wrong.

They forgot to mention that it is lagging in coffee making compared even to a cheap coffee maker machine ;D and it is lagging in instant print making (without a printer) compared to a polaroid film camera ;D

Shame on Canon ;D

 

[Jack Douglas]

Nothing like humour in resolving contentious issues!

Jack

 

[unfocused]

I don't know man. 1DX2 it is definitely lagging behind its peers...We can't say, DPR is wrong.

Well... this is precisely the issue, isn't it? Each of those cameras lags behind the others in different aspects...The way you've phrased it, the 1DxII sounds like it's the worst in everything compared to all these other models...

...just have a slight problem with how it's being spun.

I don't know. Reading the original DPReview (which is only a partial review) I did not get the feeling that it was "the worst in everything." I think that's an interpretation that people are drawing based on their own feelings. And to some degree it is fed by a small group of people on this forum who seem to have a personal vendetta against reviewers who are less than glowing. I got the impression from the review that Canon has made significant advancements and that any gap that existed is shrinking, but not gone. And of courses, the gaps were tiny to begin with.

However, before I invest $6,000 in a camera I really want to know as much about it as possible. I want to read about its weak points. If I want to know about all the good things it offers, I can go to Canon's website. Therefore, I will continue to defend DPReview for pointing out the weaknesses of any camera. To my mind, that is primary value of any review.

Earlier on I mentioned that I found the comparison between models pretty useless. What was more important to me were the actual 1dx2 tests...I don't have enough disposable income to switch everything from one vendor to another.

The tests that you posted in the article were helpful in making my decision to buy the new 1dx but it had little to do with Sony and Nikon performance. I just wanted to share that with you and hope in the future you all will focus more on how canon improved things over previous models or the comparisons between new models of the same vendor.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to us even in these angry forums full of negativity. People should try to be more constructive and less antagonistic.

I think that is a very good point. For most buyers of cameras at this level, the biggest question is: Is it worth the price to upgrade?

I know I am certainly studying reviews to see if, in my own use, it is worthwhile to move from the 5D to the 1D. I can't really imagine any circumstance where I would change brands. I have too much invested in Canon and am not going to brand-jump for tiny differences.

On the other hand, I do think it is worthwhile to know how one brand stacks up against its competitors, so I can see the value of that as well. I view that as an aspirational aspect: knowing what other brands offer helps me decide if my chosen brand is keeping pace and following a path that will continue to build value to the brand. My sense is that in Canon's case there is no doubt that it is innovating at a pace that equals or exceeds its competitors.

All in all, I see nothing to change my opinion that for the most part the criticisms on this forum are based on differences in opinion over how many angels are dancing on the sensor: an entertaining theoretical debate but of little practical use.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II shows very similar amounts of noise to the excellent sensor in the Sony a7R II up until a 3EV push, with the Canon dropping behind after a 4EV push." — DPR

Is that meaningful to anyone? If you're doing a 4EV push (or even 3EV), it means you really messed up the exposure. It means you have no clue about metering and probably suck as a photographer. If DPR stopped their testing at 3EV, they would say "The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II shows very similar amounts of noise to the excellent sensor in the Sony a7R II". Period. But for some reason they feel the need to go beyond 3EV to prove that Canon drops behind. It seems like a test designed for Sony rather than for actual photography.

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

You misunderstand what they are trying to tell you. Have you ever shot a scene outdoors in harsh bright light and had difficulty with people or objects in shadows? Sometimes, you have no control over your position or the lighting, and need to pull up shadows in post processing. Being able to pull up shadows without ugly noise appearing is a definite benefit. It does not happen to me often, but I have tried to capture some photos at outdoor events in extremely bright light where I could not control the shadows. This ability would be great. Like everything else, it does not make the total camera, but I certainly will welcome lower noise in my images.

One example is shooting sports. 10% of the time I have officials telling me I cant shoot from the desired side of the field and have to settle with shooting toward the sun. You either HAVE to push the shadows to the extreme or blow out highlights and hope you can recover. Which way you choose largely depends on the camera you use. It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.

And to get the shutter speed you need with the focal length you use what iso are you using?

it can easily be only ISO100 or 200 in that scenario

also the focal length of the lens rarely has any impact at all for shutter speed when shooting field sports since you are generally too high for it to come into play

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One example is shooting sports...It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.

Being compelled to shoot toward the sun isn't some hardship that requires a special sensor... The highlights that blow out are typically the lighter edges of very light subjects. With today's software, you can recover most of the highlights. Trust me, you will still get paid.

That response makes me wonder how often you shoot sports. Let's try another example: a baseball player wearing a white uniform and a cap on a bright sunny day. Getting detail in the uniform while also capturing the player's expression under that cap will make you yearn for every bit of dynamic range you can get.

The silly thing is that the whole crowd (or at least a decent bunch of them) that runs around screaming about DRoners and lab geeks and so on, whatever names they come up with, constantly scream things like just go out and shoot for once and put down your spreadsheet GEEK!!!!!! And yet they are the ones who constantly post things that make it appear as if perhaps it's actually they, if anyone, who are the ones who don't actually get out and shoot and do all sorts of things, since they often appear to be fairly ignorant about lots of real world shooting scenarios. ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

[quote author=rishi_sanyal] Nevermind your comments re: education, considering we both went to gradute studies, and I myself graduated from two Ivy League schools.

Really fun and productive place to be around, these forums, I'm beginning to see. Would a second Princton degree help? If so perhaps I'll consider one. Oh the horror of spending time with some of the most brilliant people on the world.

It's:

"Never mind";

"Graduate"; and

"Princeton".

Just saying. Banging on about your credentials isn't a convincing defence against allegations of bias (whether or not unintended) and of sloppy testing...

Oh - and as an American, maybe you don't see the irony of you complaining about this forum as a place to spend time, given the utterly dismal experience that is DPR...
[/quote]

wow

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here is a recent 4 stop push. Wanted to retain star colours and lift some of the faint nebula detail out as well. More DR would be helpful.

So don't push in Lightroom - it's crap for this kind of adjustment.

Why don't people get this? I've demonstrated low ISO 5 stop pushes - from a 70D, FFS - that were squeaky-clean in the shadows because I used the right converter for the job...

Is DPP that much better than LR and others for this... if so how much..?

all DPP does is apply some mushing filters so it's not really doing anything magical or better, it's just doing more DNR under the hood in certain areas

 

[Neutral]

For all 1DXm2 studio shots comparisons on DPR there is one, which is mostly interesting there.
This is 1DXm2 vs Pentax K-1 in standard and Pixel shift mode.
This one clearly shows where technology is going on (evolution trend) and what we could expect from Sony A9, which is expected to demonstrate some latest sensor technology advances combined with IBIS latest developments one of which could be several different pixel shift modes for different applications.
Then overall game will become very interesting.

As owner of 1DX and a7r2 I am going to get both 1DXm2 and A9 (or whatever name it will be).
DPR studio comparison test shots for 1DXm2 demonstrated that sensor performance is better than 1DX in every aspect – at low ISO DR and high ISO performance.
1DXm2 at ISO6400 and ISO12800 looks noticeably better than 1DX files.
Thanks to DPR, I downloaded all RAW files and compared that in LR and differences are obvious.
As for 1DXm2 comparison to a7r2 then visually 1DXm2 files looks a bit better than a7r2 despite Rishi noise measurements showing opposite. This might be due to the better noise pattern for 1DXm2, which is seems more uniform and more pleasant to eye.
Jrista demonstrated some time ago FFT of noise for different sensors, he might do the same exercise for these two bodies and share result of noise distribution.
Need to mention also that Rishi was right about color artefacts on a7r2 snapshots that which I posted earlier – that this was moiré and not the issue with rendering low contrast areas.
It became clear after downloading RAW files from DPR and checking them in LR.
Therefore, there is one point of criticism to DPR.
This is regarding quality of image rendering on their studio shot comparison - this could be done a bit better

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Is that meaningful to anyone? If you're doing a 4EV push (or even 3EV), it means you really messed up the exposure. It means you have no clue about metering and probably suck as a photographer.

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

Actually your statements prove that it is you who knows little about exposure and how sensors and exposure work and apparently who doesn't actually get out and shoot much or only sticks to highly controlled lighting scenarios.

I shoot weddings, events, portraits, corporate, kids sports (indoor & outdoor) and occasional personal stuff (landscape & street). All on location using whatever each location offers (no studio). All hours of the day or night, with available light and/or flash. I've delivered ~ 30K edited photos to clients every year for the past 15 years or so. I've never done a 4EV push — never needed to. I don't claim to be Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz, but I can manage exposure. What do you shoot?

I've done top level NCAA D1 Sports, a touch of pro sports, general shooting of all sorts of newspapers, a little bit of wildlife, tons of landscape (including lots of interior forest shooting), etc.

It's a bit surprising that you shoot 30k shots a year and have not once ever needed to pull up shadows 4 stops ever and it's completely shocking that you claim that anyone who does 4 stop anything messed up the exposure since it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how exposure and tone curves and lighting work and that you seem to think it's just all about people randomly exposing and then bringing the entire image up 4 stops! (speaking of something related to that latter though, after shooting 30,000 shots a year, for years, you have not once ever, one time, had something go wrong with the exposure and needed to rescue a shot? you are both that perfect and somehow manage to have only, ever, used any equipment you have ever owned in scenarios where it's never been tricked and you are so perfect you've always, over a million shots, had it managed to always produce a perfect result? pretty remarkable, that's not the main point for more DR though anyway, although it doesn't hurt for the rare shot that does get blown for one reason or another)

I will say though weddings, portraits, events are the types of events that some rely mostly on flash and specially arranged lighting so if you just shoot that stuff all that way then your experience really isn't as universal as you think regardless of how many shots a year you take. And kids sports usually means guaranteed to shoot from any spot and angle you wish, which is also less restrictive. ANd just because you only shoot landscape scenes that never need more DR doesn't mean that it's impossible to find shots where you could make use. Also many people got so used to ignore this or that shoot from say slide film days you might not even realize that you are giving up all sorts of potential shots that in the digital world, with a very high DR camera, might actually work.

Anyway, whatever your experience or mine, or whether you ever need more DR or not, even if you never do, whatever, fine, but that has nothing to do with making a claim that anyone who wants more DR has no clue about how to shoot and how exposure works, it's more inditing yourself and revealing the fact that you don't the whys and hows of it.

Anyway, have a nice day. That's enough of this silliness for me. Wonderful day, heading out!

 

[scyrene]

I want to read about its weak points.

Yes, I agree. Although tbh I find the most useful source of information is not professional reviews but those written by normal users, and the more reviews there are, the more accurate the picture. Not just with cameras, but anything really. I tend to read all the reviews on Amazon and similar retailers, and for photographic equipment, places like Fred Miranda forums are good. Some reviews (usually at the extremes) can be discarded, but certain themes emerge on quirks and common problems. This is also a good reason to wait for at least several months after equipment is released before deciding to purchase it - issues by then are well known. In this way I've never yet been surprised by a lens (I buy them much more often than bodies, but the principle is the same).

an entertaining theoretical debate but of little practical use.

Yeah.

 

[StudentOfLight]

For all 1DXm2 studio shots comparisons on DPR there is one, which is mostly interesting there.
This is 1DXm2 vs Pentax K-1 in standard and Pixel shift mode.
This one clearly shows where technology is going on (evolution trend) and what we could expect from Sony A9, which is expected to demonstrate some latest sensor technology advances combined with IBIS latest developments one of which could be several different pixel shift modes for different applications.
Then overall game will become very interesting.

As owner of 1DX and a7r2 I am going to get both 1DXm2 and A9 (or whatever name it will be).
DPR studio comparison test shots for 1DXm2 demonstrated that sensor performance is better than 1DX in every aspect – at low ISO DR and high ISO performance.
1DXm2 at ISO6400 and ISO12800 looks noticeably better than 1DX files.
Thanks to DPR, I downloaded all RAW files and compared that in LR and differences are obvious.
As for 1DXm2 comparison to a7r2 then visually 1DXm2 files looks a bit better than a7r2 despite Rishi noise measurements showing opposite. This might be due to the better noise pattern for 1DXm2, which is seems more uniform and more pleasant to eye.
Jrista demonstrated some time ago FFT of noise for different sensors, he might do the same exercise for these two bodies and share result of noise distribution.
Need to mention also that Rishi was right about color artefacts on a7r2 snapshots that which I posted earlier – that this was moiré and not the issue with rendering low contrast areas.
It became clear after downloading RAW files from DPR and checking them in LR.
Therefore, there is one point of criticism to DPR.
This is regarding quality of image rendering on their studio shot comparison - this could be done a bit better

Pixel shift is a multiple exposure which you are comparing to a single shot. Perhaps a more comparable approach would be to auto-bracket (or use multiple exposure mode) with the the one camera vs pixel-shift with the other.

 

[Refurb7]

Is that meaningful to anyone? If you're doing a 4EV push (or even 3EV), it means you really messed up the exposure. It means you have no clue about metering and probably suck as a photographer.

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

Actually your statements prove that it is you who knows little about exposure and how sensors and exposure work and apparently who doesn't actually get out and shoot much or only sticks to highly controlled lighting scenarios.

I shoot weddings, events, portraits, corporate, kids sports (indoor & outdoor) and occasional personal stuff (landscape & street). All on location using whatever each location offers (no studio). All hours of the day or night, with available light and/or flash. I've delivered ~ 30K edited photos to clients every year for the past 15 years or so. I've never done a 4EV push — never needed to. I don't claim to be Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz, but I can manage exposure. What do you shoot?

I've done top level NCAA D1 Sports, a touch of pro sports, general shooting of all sorts of newspapers, a little bit of wildlife, tons of landscape (including lots of interior forest shooting), etc.

It's a bit surprising that you shoot 30k shots a year and have not once ever needed to pull up shadows 4 stops ever and it's completely shocking that you claim that anyone who does 4 stop anything messed up the exposure since it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how exposure and tone curves and lighting work and that you seem to think it's just all about people randomly exposing and then bringing the entire image up 4 stops! (speaking of something related to that latter though, after shooting 30,000 shots a year, for years, you have not once ever, one time, had something go wrong with the exposure and needed to rescue a shot? you are both that perfect and somehow manage to have only, ever, used any equipment you have ever owned in scenarios where it's never been tricked and you are so perfect you've always, over a million shots, had it managed to always produce a perfect result? pretty remarkable, that's not the main point for more DR though anyway, although it doesn't hurt for the rare shot that does get blown for one reason or another)

I will say though weddings, portraits, events are the types of events that some rely mostly on flash and specially arranged lighting so if you just shoot that stuff all that way then your experience really isn't as universal as you think regardless of how many shots a year you take. And kids sports usually means guaranteed to shoot from any spot and angle you wish, which is also less restrictive. ANd just because you only shoot landscape scenes that never need more DR doesn't mean that it's impossible to find shots where you could make use. Also many people got so used to ignore this or that shoot from say slide film days you might not even realize that you are giving up all sorts of potential shots that in the digital world, with a very high DR camera, might actually work.

Anyway, whatever your experience or mine, or whether you ever need more DR or not, even if you never do, whatever, fine, but that has nothing to do with making a claim that anyone who wants more DR has no clue about how to shoot and how exposure works, it's more inditing yourself and revealing the fact that you don't the whys and hows of it.

Anyway, have a nice day. That's enough of this silliness for me. Wonderful day, heading out!

You're just making stuff up. I made no claim to being "so perfect". One or two stop errors happen but fortunately are fixable. But, no, my equipment doesn't get "tricked" by 4 stops. If that happens to you, then you do need more DR.

You're also making up shooting scenarios for me. Weddings and portraits "mostly on flash" and "specially arranged lighting" — No and no. Kids sports "means guaranteed to shoot from any spot and angle you wish" — No.

You're consistent in making stuff up about me. In an earlier post, you wrote: "Actually your statements prove that it is you who knows little about exposure and how sensors and exposure work and apparently who doesn't actually get out and shoot much or only sticks to highly controlled lighting scenarios."