>>3689276dynamic range doesn't mean shit and if you care about it you're a faggot, pic related wouldn't be a better nor worse photo if it had more dynamic range
>>3689277They're not, your image will look "worst" at ISO 1600 at night vs in natural sunlight.
Besides all of this doesn't fucking matter you're a pixel peeping /g/ faggot with no real world photo experience arguing on a Chinese basket weaving forum about the most arbitrary of things, get a new hobby.