Thanks. I guess my point is that maybe some of the less experienced "DRones" could get more out of their files in post processing. I think that I need to improve my skills before I start wanting a new camera to deal with limitations, because I may not have the most accurate idea of the scope of the limitations, and whether it is a practical issue for me warranting more money spent on body vs. lens or trip somewhere or...
I just hate usual gaudy HDR, renamed "Clown vomit" by the local certified Lightroom instructor. Learning blending techniques on Photoshop is one of my New Year's resolutions. I have Nik HDR program, and often I just don't care for the results even on the most "naturalistic" settings. It seems likely that I need to tweak the black cut-off and maybe the curves identically on all input images before taking them over to Nik HDR.
Yes, getting the RAW conversion correct can really help save some images and significantly improve the quality of others. As long as the signals are not clipped, there is data there. The Canon sensors unfortunately lack DR and introduce more noise to the shadows making it more difficult to work with.
As to HDR, it depends what you are trying to do. John Shaw, never one to be accused of over saturation, has a post called
HDR (A DIFFERENT WAY). Basically it converts the image to 32 bits where you can then adjust it in ACR or PS without the Tone Compression over saturation issues. However, I have images that I have processed as basic photographic images. And then processed again in Photomatix. These have some odd lighting effects and additional saturation. I view them as artistic impressions rather than 'photographs'. Still pleasing to view.