G5 Range seems pretty impressive to me - OOC JPEG.

gary payne wrote:

Ummm.....I don't mean to sound snotty, but that is about the worst example of good DR I've seen.  I know the conditions were harsh, but the G5 didn't seem up to the challenge.  Perhaps in raw with PP you could improve it substantially.   gp

Well, hell. You did sound snotty, and I'm pretty sure you meant it.

I don't pretend to be an expert in dynamic range, but if you click on the link under the photo to look at the original file, you should be able to see that, even though the light is harsh, there really isn't an area that lacks detail because it's blown out or underexposed, with the exception of a tiny little reflective spot at the top left corner of the building. And my point is that this is a JPEG with no PP, so I guess if it was in RAW with PP, my point would be, well, pointless. From my limited understanding of dynamic range, this photo is a decent example partially because it's a JPEG with no PP.

I haven't participated in these forums for many years. I just got back into it since I'm new to the MFT scene. I'm starting to remember why I left. It seems like, no matter what one has to say, there's somebody in this forum eager to try prove themselves smarter. I'm just here to learn and enjoy some friendly photography-related conversation--I have no use for arguments or confrontations.

Good job, Gary Payne. You sure showed me! DANG! Yer real smart!