>>2903303>The only person who is "upset" here is the guy saying things like... New to the internet are we?
>I also find it a bit strange that you seem to think highly enough of yourself as an authority of how to select a camera, yet you think static photos of books are a good representation of things like dynamic range, which is significantly important as part of practical application.It's beautiful that you think you're showing how knowledgeable you are while just revealing ignorance.
Homie, as far as the static part goes, Dynamic Range has nothing to do with movement.
Oh, that was the only file on that page? I seem to recall that image was repeated at different ISOs (which I'm sure you don't understand why that's an indicator of DR performance), then there are RAW files with significant shadowed areas that you can download, throw in some post processing program and slide that exposure slider around to your hearts content to see how much latitude the file has...and that's just this one site. It's also like you're unaware of dxomark who can tell you quite clearly what the DR is of the image and provide you with sample pictures there.
But yeah, keep claiming to be experienced and knowledgeable about this subject. You're really fooling everyone.
So can you start tripping? I don't want to filter you, I want to subscribe.
