I can't point to a specific sitye, but I'd like to add a word of warning. "Dynamic range" without a detailed statement under which constraints it was determined is not very well defined. For example, the noise level of one sensor can be very different, depending on whether you normalize it to a pixel, to an absolute sensor area, or to a specific fraction of the entire frame. Depending on what method one chooses, one will arrive at different "rankings" of cameras, and the the numbers can be misleading if one isn't careful about their precise meaning.
To make things worse, a lot of the information on the web is dubious. Some popular and influential sites are run by photographers who earned their reputation on their artistic merits. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they know what they are talking about when it comes to technical/engineering topics. Some of these junk numbers are consequently perpetuated by copycats who publish them on their own websites without properly attributing them, and in the end they are "common knowledge", but still nonsense. I've seen numbers differing by over an order of magnitude for the same camera on various sites.
In summary, unless the experimental and analytical details are given, I would strongly caution against believing any such comparison you may find online.
Hmmm actually I think those are the people whom we should listen to. And of all the photojournalists/professionals that has been lecturing me in school, everyone of them started with fully manual cameras, and know how the stuff affects photos much better than an average techie.
and after all, we're not getting cameras to compare who got more $$, who's thing is bigger, who's thing longer, but who's thing more effective. At least, I'm not. It's fun to indulge in a bit of comparison for a while..
but if boast that you have it big long, but end up cannot use it/not effective, or others don't like the way you to use it, or find that u cannot use it..
I'd rather my equipment be a bit smaller, a bit shorter, just as effective, but be able to use it to great effect everyday. best would be everyone who experiences the product and likes it.
Heh in this case, his question is perfectly legal. It's about general effectiveness. if your equipment is not effective, then less likely to have a result where everyone will like it.
Anyway no websites I know compared the DR exactly, but apparently if you shoot in raw for S3Pro, you get a really really really huge DR that in camera processing doesn't do justice to, but u haf to use adobe raw. as far as i know, S3 Pro has beaten trashed competitors up side down, and the closest competitor is the S2 Pro. with almost no one else in sight.