I think this is an interesting exercise, definitely, and it can really help to deepen our understanding of photography. And I also agree with @Tamas_Papp that it isn’t really necessary for comparing the cameras.
Ultimately, we learn to create what we want with whatever camera we have, and this is far more important than numbers.
My rather long post above about equivalency was more of an attempt to demonstrate why it doesn’t matter all that much rather than trying to promote it as a purchase consideration. I find it quite irritating when people start obsessing about numbers and promoting brand x or y. We should all just find a camera we enjoy shooting with and within our budget.
I’m wondering, how do you actually determine this? That is, which features of the image let you come to this conclusion? Is it the specular highlights being less blown while the shadows are about the same?
While I understand the theoretical concept of dynamic range, it’s still a bit unclear to me how to judge it in practice.
Try to pull similarly exposed shadows. The less noise, the better the DR. But to actually see the difference on modern cameras you will have to underexpose significantly (-3EV or more), or have very dark shadows.
Counterpoint: just forget about it, it does not matter. 99% of the time the need for a ton of dynamic range ex post is just the flipside of poor judgement in composition/exposure.
I was just basing it on the images you posted, and it’s absolutely not any kind of scientific analysis.
I noticed that the highlights and shadows were more crushed here:
