>>4359905>RP>"expensive"Get a job.
>but what about MUH DUHNAMIK RANGES???Post your widest DR, real world, single frame photo. Not a cat test. I'll bet you I have wider DR single frame photos from a fucking 7D bought 15 years ago. My years with that camera are how I know, practically, what the RP can and cannot do because they're similar in this respect. Because at the time I was shooting a lot of landscape and pushing DR. I knew when I could get away with a single frame, and when I needed to AEB 3 frames (out of which I generally blended 2). 7D was great for that because at 8 fps you can handhold your HDR brackets. Basically if the sun is in frame, you need to AEB and blend. No sun? Nail your exposure in RAW and you will be fine.
For most people DR is a marketing point. They never shoot the scenes that actually push it. They don't even know how to push it (ETTL in RAW). It's only useful if they underexpose by a huge margin (can't help overexposure).
High ISO performance is the practical reason most people end up jumping to FF, and the RP is fine there because the sensor is not invariant. e-noise goes down as ISO goes up. So at ISO 100 it gets its butt kicked in +6ev black cat tests, but at ISO 6400 it's clean like most FF bodies (basically all shot noise).
And I've never owned an RP. I jumped to FF for 50mp 5Ds resolution for massive prints. 60" is easy for that camera. It's another camera people like to call "noisy" and yet I hardly ever need to blend frames now, though maybe one in a thousand shots still needs two frames where something like an R5 or A7R could get away with one. But even when you can get away with one, at that point you often have higher IQ blending two.
For most people, DR is just a spec to argue about.
