It’s not a ‘bad,’ mine was merely a suggestion; considering the camera into which a sensor is installed can help.
Websites like DXO famously publish “sensor tests,” but that’s not at all what they are. I’m sure the semiconductor fabs have dynamic range (as well as many other) requirements which they verify in acceptance testing at the sensor level. But DXO et al. do analysis of camera files. The effect of the camera is baked in.
As for the advertised DR of the C300mkII, note canon is evaluating it differently than most. See:
https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-measured-15-stops-dynamic-range-c300-mark-ii/
In my experience the 15 stop figure is pretty accurate and consistent with most other manufacturer's methodology, but point taken. There are certain cinema companies that (imo) highly overrate DR, and others that imo underrate it (Arri–who apparently internally rate the Mini at 15+ stops, anyway, but don't want to cause confusion over incremental sensor upgrades from the original). But Canon and Sony seem to be pretty accurate in my experience, or at least consistent with each other. If anything I think they both slightly overrate DR, but it depends on if you go by what you can measure or what looks good and by when grayscale clips or when yellow clips and how the clipping looks (usually first color to clip). I've used most of these cameras pretty extensively, many side-by-side.
Of course, DR is still MUCH simpler in the video world, since we're dealing with baked-in formats that account for the sensor and the processing. That might be where my mistake is.
CML, which is imo a much more reliable resource than Cinema5D (who seem to be using the Xyla chart wrong, but that's neither here nor there), find similarly:
I want to stress that these are purely personal impressions and that you should check out the raw files at https:/cinematography.net and also get your hands on a camera to see how it feels for yo…
cinematography.net
The C700 FF surpasses Sony's newer Venice and somehow ties the Alexa, despite its dual gain architecture. (The Alexa is still way better imo. The Alexa 65 would trounce the C700.)
Then again, I might just prefer CML because their results correlate more closely with my own experiences. This is all sort of subjective and I'll admit I'm out of my league and probably wrong about most of it. I believe they found the Red Dragon to have "just okay" DR, despite DXO Mark hyping it up. But they find the Gemini to be excellent.
Regardless, Sony's video sensors seem to perform similarly to me to their stills sensors, at least in terms of DR, whereas Canon's don't. Somehow, the generation with the addition of DPAF has vastly increased the dynamic range in their video cameras and perhaps slightly reduced it in their still cameras? Again, this is just my experience. Simultaneously they've made other sensor changes that seem to have improved both stills and video, but the leap forward overall has been greater with video. The 5D Mark IV still has more dynamic range than I need for stills, though; that's not the issue. I'd love a 5D Mark IV...
I'm just wondering if they have a trick up their sleeve in the video line and, if so, what it is, and if it will make it to their stills line next. Granted, I don't think it's necessary, everything is more than good enough now, it's just odd. I didn't realize this was such a weighted subject, but should have as it's clearly a complex one.
Oddly the original C300 has a much nicer, more organic grain pattern than the C300 Mk II, and lacks the sensor bloom/banding. :/ Further confirming just how complex and obscure this all is. To some people, that might matter more than the DR. I can see why some DPs would prefer the C500 to the C700, for instance, despite it being technically inferior. I'm just curious what's up. Canon did publish a white paper, but I can no longer find it.