Originally posted by AyeYo At what??
Even an M43 GH5 has a 1.5 stops lower DR at ISO100. An RX100iii with a 1" sensor has a over two full stops less DR at ISO100 and 2.5 stops lower high ISO performance.
Not every image requires a lot of dynamic range. A lot of images on really flat light days seem to use about half the DR available according to my histogram.
Going to larger sensor sizes gets you better performance in some circumstances, but if those aren't circumstances you encounter regularly, they aren't worth paying for. Checking the DR of my images in post processing, I find a very high percentage of my images, maybe in the range or 25% would have had the same dynamic range as using my point and shoot, because the scene didn't demand any ore than that for a faithful rendition.
Part of evaluating camera systems is knowing what the various specs might mean to you in your photography. Blanket statements don't really help. You need to know if the spec means anything to you personally.
Canons for many years had less DR than other cameras, yet they were favoured for their AF at sporting events. In my case and others I know, we shoot every sunset we can and the DR of Sony sensors makes more sense. But, just because they have less DR, has absolutely no bearing on how Canon's are favoured shooting sports and action. All of these type of specs are meaningless, if the camera is not used for what it's good at. Two stops of DR is meaningless to many photographers.
When you look at DR, AF whatever, it may be the most important thing on your list, but it may be irrelevant to others, Lot's of times people get hung up on a spec. and buy something they won't use, because they just don't take the type of image that makes good use of that performance feature, but they see the "2 stops less dynamic range" and freak out.
You have to analyze your shooting style etc. to see if any given spec will mean anything to you.