This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.
Curious that you say that, Pi. Your tone seemed to make the conclusion that based on sensor performance (specifically DR), you would recommend anything but Canon, joining in with other posts saying that Canon "sucks". People "feel the need" to respond to the (in my opinion) useless conclusion that Canon cameras are inferior based on the sensor charts originally meant as the topic of this thread.
Sadly, the 1DX has worse DR at base ISO than the ancient D90.
I would say, if you need DR badly, buy anything but Canon.
There have been a few posts where the so-called "Canon Fanboys" openly acknowledge that the Sony sensors are superior in dynamic range at certain ISO levels. Why is that not enough? Because they don't buy the garbage that, based on that dynamic range, only a fool would choose Canon over Nikon (Sony)?
(Incidentally, I happen to really enjoy some of the breathtaking images "fools" like Andy Rouse are producing with their "inferior" Canon gear.) Not a single image of his have I thought to myself, "Dang -- that would be a great image if it just had another two stops of dynamic range. What a pity. I would have liked it..." And that applies to before and after his switch to Canon.
Of course, this takes me back to the point I tried to make earlier that noteworthy photographers are too busy producing fantastic photographs to complain about dynamic range getting in the way...especially when the dynamic range capability in question is for a mid-level crop sensor camera.
- Sony sensors are superior in dynamic range and noise at certain ISOs.
- Canon gear isn't stopping some of the best photographers in the world from being some of the best photographers in the world.
- There are enough people in the world that choose Canon despite #1 above, as demonstrated by those evil sales volume figures and the continuation of this seemingly endless thread, to show that dynamic range isn't everything.
We good now?