Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I found this chart to be quite revealing regarding DR. In particular the lack of DR of the D850 compared to the 5D MIV in the full range of ISO's In higher ISO's it really becomes important and that is where the D850 falls behind.

(Download)

CO

I just brought up those two cameras in the DxO labs sensor comparison. The D850 actually has wider dynamic range up to about ISO3200. After that, they are roughly the same.

Orange line - D850, Red line - Canon 5D Mk.IV

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

This chart disagrees with that and we know DxO has a tendency to bump Nikon more than other independent labs who have no bias. As you can see this shows D850 falling behind quite quickly and increasingly getting worse as it gets higher.
https://www.sonyrumors.co/sony-a7r-iii-dynamic-range-chart-posted-at-photonstophotos-vs-d850-5d-mark-iv-a7r-ii/

CO

I've read discussions about why Nikon cameras rate higher than Canon cameras in the DxO testing. Some think that they are Nikon fan boys and alter the outcomes of their test. This is nonsense. They're a respectable laboratory and publish accurate test results. The Nikon with Sony sensor combination has been outperforming Canon cameras for years.

repleo Loc: Boston

As I read it, the D850 has at most a half stop benefit over the 5D in the most useful range of ISO 100 - 25600 with another half stop benefit for the A7Riii over the D850. The A7Riii gets an additional full stop advantage throughout the full range in pixel shift mode. I would imagine that is pretty significant.

https://www.sonyrumors.co/sony-a7r-iii-pixel-shift-mode-has-over-1-stop-dynamic-range-increased/

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

OMG, not another go round about which brand has better dynamic range. It doesn't really matter... It's pretty much akin to splitting hairs. If DR is so important then why are there far, far more pro's shooting more expensive Canon's even though statistically Nikon has slightly better DR at lower ISO'S?! It's because in the real world it's statistically irrelevant.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I'm just looking at the chart I posted, it does not support that claim.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Anybody ever read this one? https://photographylife.com/nikon-vs-canon-dynamic-range

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

Would tend to agree with you. As you tech gurus and chart wizards study the technical aspects that most people will not see, the rest of us are making the most of our systems and learning how to make the best image possible with it.

This is not much different than pixel peepers looking for the most insignificant flaws and pointing it out.

I could care less which brand is used. I want to see the images produced by the one using it.

Also who shots as high as 8000 ISO let alone 50000?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Does it really matter much after 12,800? I would not buy a D850 for super low light. If I needed that I'd get a D5 or check out a D4s to see if it had the same capability as the D5. A D500 should do better in low light than a D850.

Cotondog Loc: Saskatchewan, Canada

Well said!

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

So a subjective website that promotes Sony comes up with a chart that shows Sony is better in low light. Never saw that one coming.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I bet after post processing RAW pictures from both, you would not be able to find a difference between the pictures at all. Todays cameras all have good DR. For my money, having the best focus capability is more essential, as an out of focus picture is useless, a picture with a hair more DR is completely usable.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Wow!

Aldente

Respecting opinions of "pixel peepers", "tech gurus" and "charts wizards", as was eloquently stated before me, I tend to think differently.
The great majority of iconic images created in the 20th century by the masters like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams or Helmut Newton were created with equipment that couldn't even come close to what we use in this modern day and age, but who, nevertheless, produced superbly memorable images that are equally iconic to this day.
Does anyone really think that they cared about 1/2 stop in DR while taking their B&W film shots with substandard by modern specifications lenses?

I think it's nonsensical to analyze mathematical "theoretical advantages" of one brand vs. the other. I believe, once you've generally established the brand you want to stick to, chose the proper for the job highest quality lenses you can afford and mastered the desired photographic techniques and basic light theory, you should go and take as many photos as you can, subsequently analyzing each and every one, while learning what you did right and what did wrong.
Only this way you can improve and grow - and it's true for both, beginners and seasoned pros.

In the past I read a post on another forum about a "hypothetical equipment list" one photography genius of yesteryear would use today if he was alive, suggesting he would definitely stick to brands A, B & C.
Creator of that post received an avalanche of negative comments and was quickly snapped at by an overwhelming number of professional photographers, siting that equipment wouldn't be a deciding factor in final decision of that photographer, and that he'd probably continue using the equipment that he knew and loved.
I tend to agree.