On this page someone has mapped the dynamic range vs. ISO.

If I look at my camera, I see two spikes at 100 and 400, which I would interpret as 100 as my native ISO and 400 as an electric amplified second native ISO - but still not as good as ISO 100, regarding dynamic range.

And I looked up the camera of OP, the Nikon Z5:

I can’t see a better dynamic range at 800/1600, you get the best dynamic range at ISO 100 and it goes down linear from there. There shouldn’t be a benefit between choosing ISO1600 when taking the photo or brightening the RAW in post. Or am I missing something?

Great foto!

Why did you go with ISO1600, instead of your native ISO (e.g. for my Sony A7CM2 it would be ISO100 oder ISO400)? Shouldn’t there be less noise with lower ISO? I still try to understand the pros and cons of chosing the right ISO. It feels like it barely matters when shooting RAW.

Ich dachte die heimlich eingebrachte Orthographie wäre Absicht und fands sehr genial.

Das nennt man Perineum Sunning. Einmal täglich etwas Sonne ins Po-Loch soll den Tag besser machen. Vielleicht gehen auch Taschenlampen, ich kenne mich da nicht aus.

Gibt es denn gute freie Alternativen zu Cloudflare?

Ich liebe Hausnummern! Dann denke ich immer, wenn die Eigentümer ihr eigenes Haus in der Openstreetmap finden, haben sie mehr Vertrauen in das Kartenmaterial.