jocau wrote in post #16497161
Then you'll never be happy with anything
you buy (a camera, a car, a house, you name it). Because within a short period of time something new and better will exist...
No, that isn't true. Microscopic changes aren't relevant - there is always a question of hysterese, I.e. how big improvements before it matters.
I'd say the majority of people considers a 5 year old car to be "current technology" while a 20 yo car is not. Unless debating Formula 1, in which case last seasons car is old.
Houses??? Houses comes in very different shapes. But do you really consider them a good example of technological progress. The majority of houses built today could just as well have been built 20 years ago. It is more a question of architecture than technical inovations. Now and then, you can read articles about special houses being built. But they are basically prototypes - it takes 5-20 years to conclude the actual outcome.
In the end, the dynamic range difference debated here is huge. It is not a puny, theoretical value that is hard/impossible to see. It's just that an unedited photo will not tell - it's a huge improvement waiting for a professional photographer to come and make use of.
An event photographer can't just go home if the sun is glaring at noon, and hope that it will be overcast tomorrow. When a flash isn't possible, then people in hats will have their faces totally hidden in shadow. Extra DR and you will be able to see who it is. Same with landscape photography if you aren't able to come back day after day until it's overcast.