I am just starting to learn all about digital photography and a bit of the science behind the sensors. When plugging my two recent and first digital purchases (Nikon 1V1 and D2h) into the graph, the results are rather abysmal.
Comparative results for very small sensors such the CX-format sensor as on the V1 are always going to look bad. But compare the V1 performance to the ideal CX performance for dynamic range and it doesn't look anywhere near as bad. The choice to get a small-sensor camera is a willful trade-off of absolute performance for small size and portability that many photographers make, often for a second camera. It's a choice of tool(s) for a given set of situations. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one that's actually with you when you see an opportunity for a good photo.
However, some camera models do a better job than others of maintaining a small body size for a given sensor size. The Sony 6xxx cameras are remarkably small for APS-C sensor cameras, though they have a far smaller native lens set than Canon or Nikon crop-sensor DSLRs. Still, dynamic range performance is only one consideration among many others such as sensor noise, autofocus and manual focus capabilities, ergonomics, available lens sets, etc.
Finally, progress on sensor performance has been somewhat uneven over time. For instance, compare the D70, D80, and D90 and note the sudden large jump in dynamic range performance when the D90 was introduced. When considering upgrading to a better used camera, it's useful to consider such jumps in performance as potentially good entry points.
The apparent dynamic range is affected by the overall viewing angle in a way that's equivalent to thinking about the Circle of Confusion (CoC).
Viewed from sufficiently far away (very small viewing angle) all photographs have an apparent dynamic range of 1.
Naturally print size affects viewing angle too.
Agreed then that there is a some sort of relationship between print size and dynamic range. But
how significant is this factor when viewing prints of different sizes from fairly close? For instance, I don't think you'll lose half the dynamic range by reducing print size by 50% linearly, even though you'll definitely lose half the linear resolution if the larger print was sharp.
