We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.
Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).
Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.
once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.
When you want to compare cameras the PrintDR measurement makes sense since it normalizes for photosite size difference and compares noise at the same scale between sensors having different densities, ScreenDR sure that tells you what the difference is at 100% view and what you can get if you use the full resolution, but it is not a fair way to compare since it penalizes cameras the more MP they have and it can lead you to think that a very high MP camera with amazing sensor and readout tech might give worse images than one with terrible sensor and other tech but very, very few MP, when if you compared them fairly, at the same scale, the one that measured worse on ScreenDR might actually give a much better result.
And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel. Sure if you want to get what you can out of the each original element in the file you can't get more than the 12bits or 10bits or 14bits or 16bits or whatever for the particular camera, but you don't care about that when comparing you just want to compare them at the same scale. If you compare the high MP camera to the low MP camera and want to see how it does at the same scale you need to first filter out all of the ultra high frequency noise and average it to a lower frequency scale and them compare that noise which now maxes to the same highest frequency the lower MP cam has. Then you can compare fairly between the two cameras. Now if you want to know if camera B will do better than A if you use camera B at full res then yeah use ScreenDR but don't forget that even if it then does worse by those numbers that doesn't mean it is a worse sensor since if you compare them at the same scale it might well do much better. So you get the choice higher res but perhaps worse noise or same res but perhaps much better noise.
(and since in reality you might use advanced NR and not this brute force method, if anything DxO might slightly hurt the higher MP cameras! and NOT at all give the higher MP cams such BS boost)
(I mean image this, cameras A and B are both FF, camera A delivers 36MP and uses D800 tech and camera B delivers 0.25MP and uses 10D sensor tech and now if you compare them by 100% view DR (i.e. ScreenDR) it says that camera B gives scores a much higher DR score and so you mean to tell me that you'd rather be using a FF camera based off of 10D sensor than one based off of D800 sensor tech when you are shooting a high DR scene?? Yeah maybe B delivers a 0.25MP image with better DR than a 0.25MP CROP from camera A would deliver but why are you comparing a 0.25MP CROP from camera A to the FF camera B? You mean to tell me 18x12" print from camera B would look better from camera B than an 18x12" print from camera A?? It wouldn't, but if you tried to compare just using the ScreenDR score that is what you might mistakenly think. But if you compare them using the so-called 'BS' PrintDR measurement it would right away tell you that the camera A print would work out better.)