a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I may be showing my ignorance (have never used HDR software, just HDR in CaptureOne) but I have the perception that HDR in this context is a way of reducing DR from what is contained in the raw or JPG image down to what can be displayed or printed. If that is so then it's exactly the opposite of what the OP appears to be seeking.

I'm open to being corrected if I have this backwards.

Of course, I'm not talking about software that can merge multiple exposures so that a range of exposures are captured in one, eventual, image.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

I suggest visiting our sub-forum here: HDR Photography -- Before and After http://www.uglyhedgehog.com./s-107-1.html

There you will see multiple posts showing examples and techniques to achieve High Dynamic Range results without out upgrading expensive equipment.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The quick answer is that it's a two-step process. First, the images are stacked in order to get the additional image information assembled together. Then the overall dynamic range is "squished" in order that the resulting image can be represented on the screen or printed. The end result is that both shadow details and highlight details end up being represented in the same image.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

The human eye can see a much wider dynamic range than the photo receptor. By taking several photos at various exposure levels, then merging them, the resulting photo can more nearly resemble what the eye perceives.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bad info. D850, Sony A7RIV, D810, have the widest dynamic range of any camera - 14.8 stops.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/

The chart shows a column for Landscape, which is the camera's dynamic range. Clicking on the row label will sort on the contents in the column. All of the highest scores on DR are high mp cameras.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

HDR software compresses dynamic range, which is a subtle difference from reducing it. The camera captures the entire tonal range, the software does its best to represent the capture with a bit of compression - all the tones are there, but they are "closer together". This is exactly what the OP seems to be looking for, though it is not exactly what he asked for. Wide dynamic range images can be done in a single take with several cameras, and it can be done with just about any camera if he uses HDR exposure bracketing.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Nikon and Sony - D810/D850 and Sony A7RIV - 14.8 stops.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I see you're getting plenty of suggestions for $2500 body-only cameras. (Then, start adding more costs for lens/es.) Looking the specs and shape of your Canon G1, I wonder if you're looking now for something of the same size & shape, just updated to 2020 standards?

Look at / consider:

PowerShot SX70 HS
PowerShot G1 X Mark III
PowerShot G9 X

The Powershot 'G' line has a number of different models (G1, G3, G7, and so forth). Each has a slight different mix of max aperture and zoom focal length. Sony, Nikon and others have competitive models. The 'SX' models too have some variations.

I'd look for cameras that capture in RAW as processing RAW on your computer will give the best option for capturing images that achieve the widest dynamic range in the results, including 1 or multi-image HDR processing.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I don't know about the others but the Pentax 645Z has 14.7 stops of dynamic range and has a 51MP medium format sensor. For portraits or landscapes it is hard to beat. They are selling for about $2500 used. I bought mine on ebay with the 55mm autofocus lens for about $3000. On the downside it's a heavy camera. On the upside you get a free workout. Another plus is all the 645 manual focus lenses are very reasonably priced.

(Download)

alphonso49uk

At the risk of starting up a completely new thread....I really dont get this obsession of having perfect photos straight out of the camera. To me a lot of the fun of photography comes from the editing afterwords. I use a camera primarily for getting the shot.If it needs a bit more contrast or a bit less exposure then that passes on a few hours after the shoot.Unless youre a pro working to deadlines, does anybody really have such limited amounts of time available?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot wild life, and often I am shooting early in the morning. I notice that my images from my D5 and D850 are better than with my D500 and D7500. Now, that is not necessarily Dynamic Range but rather ability for low light images. But, as the day continues, I have noticed better Dynamic Range with the D5 and D850.
You can also shoot in Raw and use post processing, this will also help improve Dynamic Range.
There is also HDR settings on todays camera's. I know my Sony's and many other camera's have settings for HDR where you can set the range you want.

wireloose

You don’t mention if you shoot in RAW, but your comment about blue skies leads me to think you are not. You will get more dynamic range in raw, but that will require post processing, and will also let you tweak any color you are not satisfied with. Sony and Nikon do have slightly greater dynamic range, but Canon has by far the largest market share of the big 3 brands, and their cameras, along with others that have been mentioned, produce brilliant results- just look at any photo contest images. Your requirements seem modest. What are you looking at that is not giving the results you want? Is it a screen image, a print? If a print, where do you get it. We can suggest Hasselblad or Fuji large format Or Phase One backs which have amazing dynamic range but may well give results in a printed jpg that are no better, for instance if the issue is the printer. A better definition of the problem will likely give a more reliable solution.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You might try Fujifilm Digital cameras, A X-T3 or X-T4 should give some improvement. But the real trick is in file handling, i.e., shoot Raw. Raw, raw, raw. Then use a good raw processor like Adobe Camera Raw, your Canon raw processor, or some other good and likely fee based professional processor. These programs can adjust the file to hold a stop or two more at the high end or to the right in a histogram. You bring it all down a bit with the Exposure slider. Much of it is technique. I do not have a lot of issues with needing a lot more dynamic range using my Pentax gear. These are today hobbyist and semi-pro cameras. I know the cameras and my glass.

If you insist on shooting JPEGs and not PPing your images you should be able to set dynamic range, contrast, and exposure refinements in your DLSR or MILC. By-the-way, RAW files must be processed or why will look soft and flat. I believe some Leica models are 16-bit instead of the nearly universal today of 14-bit. That could help a bit with dynamic range too. Again with Raw. JPGs are by definition 8-bit only.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Not to be a spoiler but I think that dynamic range is over rated, as is HDR technique to overcome sensor limitations. The play of light, the contrast between dark and light, are compositional elements that make a photograph interesting and gives it impact. In a sense, using HDR is like trying to make every single element in the scene the subject. End of rant.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

From the testers -

https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/medium-format/the-best-still-cameras-for-dynamic-range-ranked/
https://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/review-dynamic-range-of-60-camera-s/