Originally posted by beholder3 I could argue that all shooting scenarios where the dynamic range differences between a K-7 and a K-1 are important are "fringe conditions".
You could argue that but I believe many would disagree, as running into the limitations of the K-7's sensor does not require extreme situations or outrageous expectations towards dynamic range.
For sure, what constitutes "fringe scenarios" is a judgement call. However, I think we can all agree that shooting at -30°C, for instance, is not a situation that many would encounter. Likewise, we could say that taking a very high ISO image after 30min of shooting video isn't a common scenario either. I'm not trying to make the case that there is a clear cut line between "normal" and "fringe scenarios", but I think that the concept of "rather uncommon scenarios" is relatively well-defined.
You state later
Originally posted by beholder3 we first define a realistic usage pattern in detail
(emphasis is mine)
I meant "
non-fringe" to be similar in spirit to your "
realistic".
Originally posted by beholder3 Since all ca,eras today are so well rounded I guess all negative findings are for "fringe conditions".
I'd disagree with such an assumption.
For instance, the striping of some MILCs can be excited by regular backlit scenes. These stripes may not occur very often, but backlit scenes are not uncommon and it is to be expected that a regular photographer (as opposed to deep sea diving photographer or extreme arctic explorer photographer) will encounter the issue at some point in time. I think "striping" is not comparable to an issue that would only occur when pursuing rather obscure photography applications.
I'd also say that once a certain DR has been reached across the board, it is fair to call out cameras that do not reach that common level. While pushing an exposure by five stops could have been considered unreasonable (or "fringe") in the past, I don't think that still applies today, for instance because HDR images have become quite popular and it is an advantage if one can simply push the shadows of a single exposure instead of having to combine several exposures.
Again, I'm not trying to establish absolutes, just arguing that it isn't impossible to define reasonable expectations towards camera performance in today's context.
Originally posted by beholder3 we describe the issues as any general problem plus we describe the caveat : the exact parameters under which they appear and where it will not. Here the burden of evaluation is still on the reader to judge relevancy.
Yes, that is certainly a good approach and I don't see any conflict to the other approach you are describing.
Originally posted by beholder3 we first define a realistic usage pattern in detail
Yes, or we identify the affected realistic usage patterns after we have established in what range of situations issues should be expected.
So as soon as it is known when issues occur in what intensity, one can derive in what situations issues should become relevant and then the reader still can decide whether these situations are relevant to them or not.