You are missing my point. I still would a “properly exposed” image than a randomly exposed image. Getting the image right-in-the-camera is a methodology consistent with paying attention to the details. Paying attention to the details separates the consistently good photographers from the wannabes. Manipulating controls is much more than ISO ... much more than exposure only. The difference between blur and crisp is a manipulation of the controls, the difference between shallow DOF and wide DOF is controls. I am amazed that you of all people state that there is no need to fuss over aperture or shutter speed ... that is a significant portion of the photograph. As Nikon, Sony and Fuji all use ISO invariant sensors ... that is pretty much a moot point. If ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed are irreverent ... then why do manufactures still fabricate cameras with those very expensive elements in cameras? For the record, my point is to look at significance. A few EV’s of DR, isn’t as significant as a compact body, or manual controls or an EVF. I have always qualified my statements with “How I shoot and What I shoot”. I shoot with ISO Invaritive sensors. I have found that generally, it is much easier to get the final image I desire, with much less time on the computer, if I capture an image which is closer to the final image than if I capture an image a number of stops from the image I desire. An ISO invaritive sensor is significant ... a few EV’s of DR range is not significant in how I shoot and what I shoot. But, you did mention DR first. I believe that solely relying on sensor technology for a proper exposure is a crutch for bad photography. Using sensor technology as another tool for greater detail in highlights, shadows, when desired and the occasional bad exposure, is a good thing. For the record, I failed to use an apostrophe in identifying my FF cameras ... 1D’s, as in a pair of 4’s.