[wim]

Just came across this article 
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/24/this-is...n-dxomark/

1Dx markiii scored badly in DXO mark because it has higher native ISO and measurements are made at native ISO, but at equivalent ISO speeds it does pretty well.   A sports photographer  won't mind this if it gives him any advantage at high ISO setting.
 
Here's what DXO themselves have to say about it 

https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-1d-x-m...or-review/

So again the dynamic range values are measured at native ISO (which is basically the ISO speed used on tripod for landscapes and where we need the most of dynamic range)

Hi Toni,
I have dig into the sensor technology in the past. There is something fundament that you have to understand. The sensor design begins with definition of sensor parameters- mostly based on use cases. Just to name few of them
-         Sensor size
-         Number of pixels.
-         Light sensitivity – so called base ISO value
-         Dynamic range
-         Color reproduction
 
As anything in the nature parameters play agains ach other. I have electrical engineer background and  understand it. This fundamental apply in many science area.  I’ll try to use biological example – close to your background.  You cannot have animal that fly as an bird, swim as an fish and run as cheetah. There are such all rounder animals like ducks, they do everything but nothing is best.
Same principe applies in sensor design too. In general sensor with higher DR have lower ISO performance. Canon designers made a great job with balancing those parameters. What need the average 1Dx shooter?
-         Higher frame rate
-         Fast AF
-         Excellent low light performance even in it scarify other IQ parameters – e.g. Megappixel count, DR, color reproduction
DXo try to use quotative numbers to represent The problem is that the average person doesn’t  know the meaning of this numbers.
 
 

Hi Miro,

I'd like to make an addition here:
there also is a choice in dealing with noise in in-camera-processed RAWs. We do know that Nikon and Sony filter out noise in some clever way before even storing the RAW files, thus, in a way, reducing noise artificially in the RAW files these cameras create.

Canon has chosen not to do this.

The net result of this is that Sony and Nikon have cleaner RAW files, and based on DxO criteria then have higher DR numbers. However, they also have less real detail towards the lower end of the DR range, f.e., the disappearance of stars in night sky shots, whereas Canon files retain more real detail, even though the noise levels are higher. DR numbers unfortunately are based on noise levels ....

BTW, it is possible to process Canon RAW files in such a way they appear to have similar DR levels as Sony and Nikon RAW files. There are a few (engineering-like) articles on the subject on the internet, although I do not have any links to those at the moment. I did read a few over the years.

Having said that, A DR of over 10 for me is not restrictive at all. I developed a Zone System for use with film many years ago, wiyh B&W in ideal circumstances approximately having a DR of (8 to) 10, and still adhere to the same principles for digital, be it adjusted for digital. That works fine for me, and that means that a DR of 8 to 10 stops is plenty for me. If I need more, I just create an HDR file composed of several shots with different exposures.  

Kind regards, Wim