No, not in any objective way. Of all the metrics DR is the hardest to quantify. It's very difficult to test and varies depending on a number of variables which I am not comfortable in quantifying.
I doubt that anyone could see a noticeable difference between the two though in real world shooting. At base ISO most top-end cameras now are displaying about 12 stops of DR.
Ok, that is exactly what I was wondering....if there was a noticable diffrence....if one solidly pulled away from the other in that aspect or not.
Is their any other quality diffrences beside the obvious resolution diffrence? IE: does 16 bit vs. 14bit stand out...etc.
I just know the kit I want will end up being about $50,000 with lenses. I know my customers are asking for larger and larger prints.
Just trying to decide between a sooner evolutionary jump to a D3X (less expensive = sooner) or a later jump to what may be a compleatly diffrent world (forgoe the evolutionary jump, save the money, make due with my D300 for now and maybe toward the end of the year get the P65+ kit)
I know such decisions are individually assesed, just trying to get some info from anybody who has worked with both.....what I am trying to find out is if they are in compleatly diffrent worlds.....and if even say a comparable MP count back would also still be in a diffrent realm... than a D3X file.
Right now I push the edge with 40" x 60" prints I am selling and usually I am more comfortable with 30" x 45" as my hard limit on D300 prints. I know MF will do much better. My customers are happy, but myself...well...its a quality thing.
I appreciate your input...thanks for taking the time to respond.
Roman
