My point was that Sony/Nikon seems to be doing DR at base ISO better than Canon at the moment. It is my impression that this is a consensus among those that try to estimate DR, not only DXO.
As a Canon user, I hope that Canon will be able/willing to supply my invested lenses with a competitive sensor (=at least as good as the competition) when time comes to swap my 7D.
No doubt about it, but the graph gives the impression that Nikon has had a lead in cameras for landscape purposes since 2006 when in fact it is Canon which has had the lead until 2010 in the type of camera which would be considered more suitable for landscape purposes, that is full-frame.
Prior to the introduction of the D3X just a couple of years ago, a 5D2 could reasonably have been considered a better option for landscape purposes, than any Nikon offering, because of the the 5D2's significantly higher pixel count (21mp as opposed to 12mp) and at least equal DR at base ISO.
Right now, there is no doubt that the D800 excels all other FF models in terms of base DR and over all resolution, the two factors considered important for landscapes.
However, if you were going on a trip next week to shoot landscapes, you probably wouldn't get your hands on a D800, they're in such short supply. Your options amongst the two brands might be either a second-hand D3X or a brand new 5D3, both at a similar price.
The D3x would have the advantage of better DR at low ISO's, and the 5D3 the advantage of better DR at high ISO, plus of course HD video capability which the D3X lacks.
Just trying to get things in a clear perspective. Canon is not yet a hopeless case.