personally I use a graduated ND filter, which often overcome any DR difficulties in landscape pictures.
I never feel limited by DR with my 6d. Most situations with a big DR difference have such a huge DR span in them that the small difference in the cameras DR does not help anyway in my experience. And as said before here, there is always a tripod and the HDR alternative.
I'm in the market to go full-frame from a Nikon d5100. I'm not heavily vested in Nikon DX so I've been taking a real close look at the 6D and D600. I shoot mostly landscapes, and really like the Canon's 'color,' and whole system a bit better than the Nikon.
My trouble is that i keep reading everywhere how much better the sensor is on the Nikon. Especially over at DxO, where the 6D's sensor is rated barely better than my older D5100, and in fact the dynamic range on the D5100 is 1.5 EV greater than the newer and full framed 6D. So I'm wondering from your experience, how much does this matter in real world shooting? Would the 6D really be a step back except in high ISO/low-light situations? Is DxO even that accurate or trustworthy, it seems all their top-rated equipment is Nikon?
thanks in advance,
|IMG_8168ABCD by citori525|
|McKinley meadow by TimR32225|
from Natural meadows
|Flare-well to a Classic Flying Machine by cjf2|
from Flying Machines
|_DSC2146 by jerste|
from Helios-44 II
|Leopoldsteinersee by RaCor|
from Landscape - Colour #3