When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900
I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.
Obviously it is, but the discussion to be relevant has to be related to real world examples doesn't it?
Since nobody really believes that the results of the G10 and P45+ are impossible to distinguish, cameras with closer peformance and different prices need to be compared for this essay to be more than a theoretical write up.
Michael brought up the D3x vs A900 case and the whole essay orbitates around this example. From this standpoint, discussing the accuracy of his assesement of the performance gap is relevant.
What does 10% mean? When the P25+ offered one stop more DR than the 1ds2 (technically less than 10%), did all the photographers who agreed to spend 25.000 US$ on a P25+ agree that that one stop DR was only a 10% increase in performance? Did Michael not seeing such a gap in his tests of the D3x/A900 mean that there is no difference of performance between the bodies, or that the testing ground was not suitable to show the differences?
Discussion on global warming would have a lot less impact without data backing up the claims of the scientists...
The person who speaks here is not the D3x owner trying to convince the world that he bought the right toy, but the remains of the scientist I once was.
Anyway, I'll refrain from posting more on this topic and will enjoy stitching with my over-expensive camera instead.