Try to get away with that restriction in an equivalence thread
I don't know who Russ and Loz are, but Bill Claff has the data showing the two cameras have the same DR at their respective base ISOs. The A1 has about a 1/3-stop advantage in general across the board.
The question that's too often ignored in these discussions is, does having a lower DR make a camera unusable. When the Z6III came out, people were losing their minds over a peak DR of 10.44 stops at ISO 100. To put that in perspective, I shared that for years I'd been photographing wildlife and birds with a Nikon D500. I would typically use an ISO of 400 to be in the camera's invariant range. The D500 has just over 9 stops of DR at ISO 400. That's more than a stop less than the Z6III at its base ISO and the D500 makes gorgeous images with those 9 stops.
We're photographers and we'll always welcome more dynamic range if it fits within our creative goals for a photo. As Horshack has documented, Panasonic has applied a technology allowing a fast action, high data rate camera to not pay a significant price in DR at base ISO to achieve that data-crunching nimbleness. That's a good thing and I would welcome it in future generation Nikon cameras.
However, let's not lose sight of the fact that great photography can and is being done with exposures so weak that a camera's DR is in the 6 and 5 stop range. That's like 3% of the DR of the Z6III at base ISO, less than that if the reference is the Z8 at base ISO.
The bottom line is this: if a person can do outstanding photography with a Z8 or Z6III, it's not the camera's fault.
