>>Under/over within the 10 stop range is understood. It is >not clear to me how that has any benefit outside the >range.< > >I don't quite follow what you mean. Please can you clarify?
I guess I'm thinking that you mean the likely hood of having an over/underexposure situation is decreased, if the range of the camera covers all values in a scene.
> >My original comment was simply alluding to the fact that the >greater the DR of the camera, the less likely will be >overexposure or underexposure of an image I capture, all else >equal, and that with a D800 I have captured images that even >with careful exposure were barely prevented from being both.
OK, I guess I need to get one to play with it . I was thinking that 14.5 stops has 4.5 more stops than needed per se. If your exposure is accurate within +/- 2.25 stops, the range should have you covered?
Initially I was thinking in terms of an incident meter exposure where zone V would be exposed for zone V and all the other zones would fall within the latitude. The comments on exposure error got me to thinking that extra range would be or exposure forgiving.
> >>The SNR argument is one I hadn't thought of and that might >be the king pin?< > >No idea. The thought occurred to me as I wrote the post.
Scott Chapin Powder Springs, GA, USA Nikonians Team Member