| Joined: | Wed Apr 11th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
HDR, done well can be almost as undetectable as the original but done badly... yes it is a work around for dynamic range limitations but how much dynamic range do you actually need? I'm not sure of the range of the human eye but much beyond that will start to look unnatural. There are effects in photography that have been over used and can turn the average viewer off them, milky waterfalls for example, great once, OKish a couple of times but when every published image of a waterfall does it I want to turn the page. HDR is much the same, well done you may only suspect it has been done but the gap between that and overdone is small. A bit like compression in audio, if you can detect it, it is too much.
I have to agree that a 25MP to 30MP D500 would be a winner, a DX body that is clearly ahead of the field, but it would need the high ISO performance of current lesser cameras.
To support it Nikon would need to update the venerable 17-55 f2.8; a change to 16-55 f2.8 VR would be good, though a 16-70 f2.8 VR would be even better, if expensive. It would also close the gap between the DX standard zoom and the 70-200 f2.8. Nikon have neglected the DX range when it comes to high performance zoom lenses and that needs to be addressed. A DX lens equivalent to the 14-24 f2.8 would be good too.
I have yet to try a Z series camera, I already know that it is too small for comfort where I am concerned so I have little incentive despite the reported performance.