Sony A7R on DXO - Highest full frame IQ ever

[zlatko]

Then you must not have read it. It counters your claims that:

• "Canon is getting trounced in IQ, period."
• "There's no question it's getting harder and harder to sit and watch these stunning sensor made available as Canon spins tires."

It didn't counter anything. What you did was provide platitudes in place of specifics. DXO is providing substantial and meaningful specifics with which to engage in modern sensor discussion.

Many skilled photographers are doing just fine with Canon, including some of the best in photography. They can choose any camera but prefer Canon. You see, for sensor critics, dynamic range is everything. By their standards, it would have been irrational to choose a film like Ektachrome or Velvia over, say, Kodak Gold 200 with its superior 15 stops of DR. Indeed, sensor critics might have shaken their heads at Steve McCurry for ever shooting anything with Kodachrome with its inferior DR. And they might have wondered why Ansel Adams bothered writing a whole book on how to deal with various sensor limitations when he could just have used the stunning Gold 200 and been done!

Oh boy. Now we're into logical fallacies up the wazooo. None of this has anything to do with the actual context of this thread.

What is it about DXO that you don't buy into? What can Canon do to catch up in sensor technology?

The facts I'm stating may not be substantial and meaningful to you, but they are to the photographers I'm talking about. They choose Canon and work with Canon because it actually works for them, not because of platitudes. It does the job they need to get done, sometimes in very demanding circumstances. They are not worrying about any need to "catch up in sensor technology". To get specific, I'd have to make a very long list of photographers and link to their work.

If you find logical fallacies in the film analogy, you are welcome to counter them. But I think they are apt. Today's sensor critics would have ranked Kodak Gold 200 well above films like Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Velvia. Kodak Gold 200's score would dominate the DR rankings, and yet somehow that film was not the first choice of the prominent photographers, magazines and publishers of the film era. The point is that dynamic range, while relevant, was generally not the leading criterion for film selection. That remains true when it comes to camera selection in the digital era.

 

[Dylan777]

I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.

All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company.

My tiny RX1 would kick 5D III A** in still shooting...PERIOD.

How often you hear people talk crap about a product that they haven't touch?

Not everyone has the money or the inclination to buy and shoot with a fixed lens FF. That said, I doubt whether given two comparable images one would be able to tell which image is from which camera.

I wouldn't say that JR

Raw file from RX1 helps ALOT in PP compared to 5D III. Especially the bad metering shots which I got those quite often ;D

I wouldn't buy A7 IF the RX1 performs @ ave level.

 

[Dylan777]

I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.

All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company.

My tiny RX1 would kick 5D III A** in still shooting...PERIOD.

How often you hear people talk crap about a product that they haven't touch?

Not everyone has the money or the inclination to buy and shoot with a fixed lens FF. That said, I doubt whether given two comparable images one would be able to tell which image is from which camera.

Exactly my thoughts and point that I was trying to get at.

Every system has it's pros and cons. I think we can all agree that canon is behind on some level with respect to sensor tech. However, I only wanted to point out the fact that there are lots of people in here making big statements about how bad canon is, or how their IQ is being trounced that probably couldn't identify images taken from one system or the other. The sample image provided by Dylan is a perfect example of that.

This photo was taken inside Chuck e Cheese(lighting is not that good), she was riding on of those "rocking car" moving back and forth. Original raw was quite bad, still, the final photo came out in decent shape.

Bottom line is bigger & better sensor(sony) will help A LOT in PP. Many of us(canon shooter, including me) have hard time accepting it though.

 

[J.R.]

I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.

All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company.

My tiny RX1 would kick 5D III A** in still shooting...PERIOD.

How often you hear people talk crap about a product that they haven't touch?

Not everyone has the money or the inclination to buy and shoot with a fixed lens FF. That said, I doubt whether given two comparable images one would be able to tell which image is from which camera.

I wouldn't say that JR

Raw file from RX1 helps ALOT in PP compared to 5D III. Especially the bad metering shots which I got those quite often ;D

I wouldn't buy A7 IF the RX1 performs @ ave level.

I would say that is a fair assessment. The Sony sensors would give you more latitude in post processing. But then, I say speaking of properly exposed and processed images from the cameras.

BTW, how did you find the metering in the RX1? The copy I tested seemed to unexpose most of the shots by almost a full stop.

 

[spinworkxroy]

I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.
Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.

 

[mackguyver]

I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.
Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.

Wow, that is a big move and if you're using the EOS M that much, I'm sure it was the right one. The gear you actually use is the best gear you can get.

 

[Dylan777]

I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.

All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company.

My tiny RX1 would kick 5D III A** in still shooting...PERIOD.

How often you hear people talk crap about a product that they haven't touch?

Not everyone has the money or the inclination to buy and shoot with a fixed lens FF. That said, I doubt whether given two comparable images one would be able to tell which image is from which camera.

I wouldn't say that JR

Raw file from RX1 helps ALOT in PP compared to 5D III. Especially the bad metering shots which I got those quite often ;D

I wouldn't buy A7 IF the RX1 performs @ ave level.

I would say that is a fair assessment. The Sony sensors would give you more latitude in post processing. But then, I say speaking of properly exposed and processed images from the cameras.

BTW, how did you find the metering in the RX1? The copy I tested seemed to unexpose most of the shots by almost a full stop.

JR,
There should be a display button, you can read all info - shutter, aperture, ISO and camera histogram etc...

 

[zlatko]

I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.
Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.

Your post shows why the A7/A7r is so interesting to a lot of photographers. It offers a solution for photographers looking for big camera image quality in a small camera body. We've never before had a full-frame interchangeable lens camera that is this small. And the fact that it can be used with so many different lenses, both autofocus and manual focus, makes it even more interesting.

 

[Dylan777]

I never did believe in DXO..I love my 5D3..but unfortunately, it started getting to big and heavy carrying it around with the 24-70II all the time.
Sad to say. i was hoping Canon would release something as good but lighter..i even bought the EOS M.
The last 6mths, i never touched my 5D3 at all and always went for the EOS M instead.
Over the weekend, i finally made the big move..i sold the 5D3, sold all my lenses, all my flashes and pre-ordered the A7R.Don't get me wrong, i still think the 5D3 is the best camera in the world, it's just not the camera i need.

If you do still shooting, I doubt this move would harm you. I have 2 young kids, therefore, my 5D III + L lenses will cont. to be used next 4-5yrs.

I carry x100s and my wife uses her RX1 when we take the kids out. Yes, I do love the size of those camera.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

YES! I'm sure I will be buying a Sony A7 for its compact size and that appeals to me as a carry around camera vs shooting images with my iPhone or carrying around one of my three full sized DSLRs with several lenses. NOT because I think it will produce better images nor will it ever replace my Canons. I own both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III. Both cameras serve me well and produce image quatlity that still to this day never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago I shot a concert in an extremely dark venue and for the first time, I allowed my Canons to shoot at 12,800 ISO. Of course there was noise in the images, but I was still blown away at how comparatively clean they were. Canon sensors have been getting a bad rep for not keeping up with the Joneses, but for those of us who shoot professionally, it has not affected our work not one single bit. Both top of the line Canons produce excellent images even at high ISOs. Yes Sony and Nikon can brag about great new sensor technology, but I can brag about great images. At the end of the day, that's what's most important to me and my clients. Canon sensors may not be the shiny new kids on the block, but they get the job done.

 

[chilledXpress]

Then you must not have read it. It counters your claims that:

• "Canon is getting trounced in IQ, period."
• "There's no question it's getting harder and harder to sit and watch these stunning sensor made available as Canon spins tires."

It didn't counter anything. What you did was provide platitudes in place of specifics. DXO is providing substantial and meaningful specifics with which to engage in modern sensor discussion.

Many skilled photographers are doing just fine with Canon, including some of the best in photography. They can choose any camera but prefer Canon. You see, for sensor critics, dynamic range is everything. By their standards, it would have been irrational to choose a film like Ektachrome or Velvia over, say, Kodak Gold 200 with its superior 15 stops of DR. Indeed, sensor critics might have shaken their heads at Steve McCurry for ever shooting anything with Kodachrome with its inferior DR. And they might have wondered why Ansel Adams bothered writing a whole book on how to deal with various sensor limitations when he could just have used the stunning Gold 200 and been done!

Oh boy. Now we're into logical fallacies up the wazooo. None of this has anything to do with the actual context of this thread.

What is it about DXO that you don't buy into? What can Canon do to catch up in sensor technology?

The facts I'm stating may not be substantial and meaningful to you, but they are to the photographers I'm talking about. They choose Canon and work with Canon because it actually works for them, not because of platitudes. It does the job they need to get done, sometimes in very demanding circumstances. They are not worrying about any need to "catch up in sensor technology". To get specific, I'd have to make a very long list of photographers and link to their work.

If you find logical fallacies in the film analogy, you are welcome to counter them. But I think they are apt. Today's sensor critics would have ranked Kodak Gold 200 well above films like Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Velvia. Kodak Gold 200's score would dominate the DR rankings, and yet somehow that film was not the first choice of the prominent photographers, magazines and publishers of the film era. The point is that dynamic range, while relevant, was generally not the leading criterion for film selection. That remains true when it comes to camera selection in the digital era.

Zlatko, you should give up trying the logic route... I think the point been made succinctly, working professionals give little thought to DXO scores or absolute perfection in the sensor (note: I said little thought... for those already jumping to conclusions). Rational consideration always wins when your concerned more with your work than your sensor. It's also worth pointing out, in 3-6 months, your camera will be old news and as such completely worthless trash incapable of even posting cat photos to FB. That's when you come to CR to complain about how you got screwed with garbage you bought from big bad Canon.

Oh... great site Zlatko, your work is superb and your road to pro is impressive. It's a wonder you got that far with such crappy equipment and rotten inferior sensors :

 

[9VIII]

YES! I'm sure I will be buying a Sony A7 for its compact size and that appeals to me as a carry around camera vs shooting images with my iPhone or carrying around one of my three full sized DSLRs with several lenses. NOT because I think it will produce better images nor will it ever replace my Canons. I own both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III. Both cameras serve me well and produce image quatlity that still to this day never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago I shot a concert in an extremely dark venue and for the first time, I allowed my Canons to shoot at 12,800 ISO. Of course there was noise in the images, but I was still blown away at how comparatively clean they were. Canon sensors have been getting a bad rep for not keeping up with the Joneses, but for those of us who shoot professionally, it has not affected our work not one single bit. Both top of the line Canons produce excellent images even at high ISOs. Yes Sony and Nikon can brag about great new sensor technology, but I can brag about great images. At the end of the day, that's what's most important to me and my clients. Canon sensors may not be the shiny new kids on the block, but they get the job done.

That's only in the low ISO range that people have any complaint about Canon sensors. High ISO is still Canonland. If you look at specs on Sensorgen, above ISO 800 Canon is generally class leading.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ok, I'll be the first one to jump in. DxOMark. Ugh.

While some of their measurements are meaningful to me, the whole 'rescale to 8MP' for most of the measurements of the sensor is just...WTF?! Anyway...good for the bits that are useful.

The rescale is not WTF in the slightest, it doesn't even matter what they rescale it to so long as to the same count for all bodies. It's just normalization. It's the only sensible and fair way to compare across bodies.... but if you think some old 4MP body is cleaner than an 18MP 1DX then go ahead and be my guest and don't bother with any tests that do normalization .

Well, I understand the normalization is important for some kinds of comparisons, but from my basic understanding (could be wrong) of how DxO does some of their scoring, things like Noise & Dynamic Range tend to prefer higher MPx sensors because when you down-scale those, with a good algorithm, move in a positive direction. But that isn't necessarily the true measure of the sensor, and while lots of us do shoot and down-scale for the web, many don't and for big prints we use the full resolution image. Now, I'll grant you, it'd be hard to design a good, scientific & repeatable test for many of the things they use the re-scaled images for (hmmm...do they keep using the exact same rescaling code every time? or do they keep using newer algorithms/code in, say, PS?), but surely the really smart people at DxO could come up with some other means that also makes sense.

But it does make sense and doesn't favor the higher MP cameras, all it does is PREVENT the favoring of LOW MP cameras. Now sure if you print 60" from the 22MP and like 6" from the 4MP camera and view the prints from the same distance away their normalized scores won't match what you see, but how the heck is that fair? Try printing the 4MP camera to 60" and then compare both, suddenly the overall noise will almost certainly look worse from the 4MP camera because it used older tech and the 'grain' size of the noise will be larger which looks more objectionable to the eye as well. Or print one to 60" and one to 6" but then view the 60" print from much farther back so it looks like a 6" in terms of coverage of the eyes field of view.

And if you carefully downsample the higher MP with advanced algorithms you could even do better than the simple DxO formula, so, if anything, considering that and considering that smaller grains look better and so on, if anything, they are giving a slight disadvantage to the high MP cameras.

How is it fair to compare them at 100% view when the lower MP camera isn't even capable of showing such a much more highly 'magnified' view as the higher MP camera? With the higher MP you could chose more res or better noise or some intermediate.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm interested to find out how many people in this forum and elsewhere are going to be getting this body specifically to shoot landscape with their Canon glass?

Once I get money saved up again (wasn't expecting any chance for more DR with my current lenses at this time since Canon surely wasn't releasing anything of the sort and had no clue the Sony was coming) and if Canon has nothing for better DR by next spring when I start shooting more again (entering winter here now) or at least a development announcement for something not too far off that specifically promises much better DR then yes I will nab this Sony then.

My second question is, how many of you in here will be taking photos on a regular basis where the extra 2.7 stops of DR will make or break your capture?

Just curious.

Often enough I could use it that I do want more DR.

(The only reason I, and many to most of the others who want it, it is because of things that happen in the field, contrary to all the nonsense spouted by fanboys who claim it's just indoor lab nonsense. Not everyone will need more all that often, perhaps some never, but certainly man could make use of it, and I'd be willing to be a lot of money, that many who say it's useless and makes no difference and stupid and so on would suddenly find some more shooting opportunities opening up and find it useful at times themselves. I'd also bet a lot of money that at least some of the naysayers would be trumpeting it from every mountain top if Canon had the lead now and a few of those would probably even say ridiculous stuff like Nikons are useless for taking pictures. Although you don't sound like you fall into that latter category at all, you just seem honestly curious.)

 

[J.R.]

I want to be convinced. It has yet to happen. I would love nothing more than to gather enough data to be convinced that I should in fact lay down my hard earned cheese for the new Sony body.

All I have seen throughout all these threads are people that either have no experience with the Sony sensor, or do via the d800/e but have yet to show samples of anything that exhibits a quality that cannot be had with a dslr from any other company.

My tiny RX1 would kick 5D III A** in still shooting...PERIOD.

How often you hear people talk crap about a product that they haven't touch?

Not everyone has the money or the inclination to buy and shoot with a fixed lens FF. That said, I doubt whether given two comparable images one would be able to tell which image is from which camera.

I wouldn't say that JR

Raw file from RX1 helps ALOT in PP compared to 5D III. Especially the bad metering shots which I got those quite often ;D

I wouldn't buy A7 IF the RX1 performs @ ave level.

I would say that is a fair assessment. The Sony sensors would give you more latitude in post processing. But then, I say speaking of properly exposed and processed images from the cameras.

BTW, how did you find the metering in the RX1? The copy I tested seemed to unexpose most of the shots by almost a full stop.

JR,
There should be a display button, you can read all info - shutter, aperture, ISO and camera histogram etc...

In all fairness it was a rather hasty test and I was shooting with the OVF. When I ultimately checked the images later, I felt the were unexposed and had to work on them.

Who knows... Maybe user error

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Anyway, at least for stuff where you can do liveview manual focusing we in the Canon world can now escape Canon's tiresome milking of decade old sensor tech and just nab a Sony and an adapter.

If you really feel like that, and I'm sure you do, why don't you do just that? What is it that makes you feel the need to make such comments?

What makes ME feel the need? Why don't you ask the people who I was responding to who were trashing the A7R here? I only responded because they were questioning the need and questioning how the A7R could be useful for anyone. So I told them why it could be.

And if Canon has nothing by spring when I start shooting more again (just about winter now and I don't shoot nearly as much during this time) and when I have money possibly free again (wasn't expecting to need any camera body funds at this moment so none saved up) I will and so will others.

Your comments are so obviously heart felt and it seems to matter so much to you. You seem to believe that Canon are such a poor company to buy from I just can't get my head around why it matters so much to you.

I call it like I see it. The new Sigma 24-105 samples look awful compared even Canon's very average 24-105 never mind their pretty decent 24-70 f/4 IS and superb 24-70 II. And I said so in the other thread. The 24-105 seems like a much better buy to me and the 24-70 f/4 IS can be had at times for not that much more and on the sale prices also seems like a better buy and the if you don't need IS and have the money the 24-70 II sure seems to deliver much better.

Now that ML has unlocked the actual hardware abilities of 5D3 video I also go around calling that by far the best on any regular DSLR (the C DSLR video is both better and worse at the same time).

I don't need to justify my Canon body purchase and go to extremes to pretend it's the best in every single regard or believe that unless sometimes is that it is useless or something to feel bad about owning. I could make use of more DR and what is the harm in everyone trying to get the point to Canon and trying to get them to stop milking their old tech? What good does it do for any Canon user for Canon marketing to keep telling engineering to stick with milking old tech?

I don't tell people that if they don't see a need for more DR that they need to learn how to shoot as you so often see the fanboys do to those who say they could use more DR. I don't go around telling them to learn how to use a camera and learn how to expose. Or make up tales about DxO is pure rubbish in all regards. And so on.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Every camera in the world has sensor limitations. Knowing and working with sensor limitations is a part photography, no matter what camera you are using. Ansel Adams frequently wrote about sensor limitations.

Yes, all true. And so?
We know what they are and shoot around them and have fun doing so.

How does that make the A7R useless for everyone? How does that explain why it's sin to like the idea about having more DR and more shooting options open?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

LetTheRightLensIn, you're awfully grumpy today. I understand that you want better DR and such, and yes, Canon is behind Sony (and by virtue, Nikon) in sensor tech, but my point is that DxO's measurements would make you believe that the 5DIII and 1DX are absolute garbage when in fact a huge number of commercial shots are produced with them. Even Nikon's main man, Thom Hogan is making a similar point in his latest blog post:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html

Most of us on the wanting more DR side of things, constantly say to not bother with the overall scores since they can't be weighted in a way which would make sense to everyone and to just look at the regular charts.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1339351

DxOmark just published the full Sony A7r sensor test. And according to their measuresand ranking system the camera scores the same points as the Nikon D800-D800E (and that for $500 less). And it literally kicks the Canon5DIII in the butt.



Source: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1339351

Well played Sony! And thanks to the wonderful metabones adapter, I guess we could say that this really is the "Canon body" we have been waiting for.

You seem to be confused. DXO does not rate the IQ of the camera, they do not even take a photo or mount a lens for this test. All they did was test the sensor without a lens.

At least DPR tests the camera, not just a sensor. DXO tests the sensor but gives the camera a rating when the images might be horrible, or it might have some really nasty flaws.

And what horrible IQ disasters have people found with the D800?
Sure there could be some hidden disaster in the A7R, but there also might not be.
Why is it a sin for a Canon user to be glad he has a way to get more DR for some types of shooting while still getting to use his Canon glass and not have to immediately jump into some whole system switch to Nikon at the moment? Is it a sin for a Canon user to own something non-Canon branded?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DxOmark just published the full Sony A7r sensor test. And according to their measuresand ranking system the camera scores the same points as the Nikon D800-D800E (and that for $500 less). And it literally kicks the Canon5DIII in the butt.

I have thousands of images from the D800 and from the 5D3, and there is no butt-kicking happening in either direction. While both do a fine job, for me and my work the disadvantages of the D800 outweigh the advantages.

DxO charts are interesting if you are just buying a sensor. But photographers evaluate photos and usability for their tasks more than sensor charts. The sensor is the least interesting thing about the A7/A7r, which looks to be a very interesting camera otherwise.

The (mostly) anonymous online complaints about Canon's sensors don't stop anyone from making absolutely awesome photos with Canon's sensors in a great variety of circumstances. This is proven day after day by thousands of photographers, including some of the best in the business. When I hear about or meet a photographer whose work I've admired for decades and their main camera today is the 5D3, that tells me a lot more than anonymous complaints on the Internet.

Yeah but did ever think that not everyone is in the studio portrait business where you can control the lighting exactly as you wish???


Indeed, I don't give a shite about absolute perfection in sensors or DR. I run a portrait business... and often speak with other colleagues doing the same. Not once has anyone cared about whether you shoot Canon, Nikon, or whatever. It's always more about how the gear performs in the field and if it's more of a hindrance or asset. Todays offerings from the camera world will more than cover the needs of most in the IQ department... missed focus and poor metering though will be a hindrance any day of the week.

I have never taken this thing you call a "Landscape", tell me more my liege, it sounds like some type of sorcery. I'm also confused about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow and the effect coconuts would have on such a beast.

Love the cherry picking and assumptions... Funny that you think all portraits are taken in a studio with perfect lighting. Let's all jump to conclusions and make assumptions just to prove our points. I can see this thread has caused you pain and you are angry. You deserve the best sensor money can buy, sorry you feel so cheated by Canon... it must be terrrrrrible to live with such inferior gear. You should jump right on this A7r, just check out those numbers or the two next to it.

The fallacy is that there is perfect camera out there, the greener grass. I own Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Leica products. They all have pluses and minuses. They are tools and everyone makes their own decisions about what they need/want. If the perfect sensor is all that matters to you... then every few months dump your current selection, head to DXO and sign up for the newest one on top of the pile. You can then sit in your room, fondle it, take tons of ISO test shots and analyze the results to your hearts desire. That is until the next latest and greatest trashes your precious.

Wow talk about jumping to conclusions. And just because you happen to never need more DR then of nobody else possibly could and anyone else who might is just some silly poser chasing after every new release or lab monkey who shoots nothing but test charts and black frames all day long or something. Riiiiight. Whatever dude.