Fhotoace, I know you clicked on this so I'd like to hear from you regarding the matter.
Firstly, let me state, this question is intended to provoke intelligent discussion and I'm only looking for counter arguments or reasons behind why "you" trust DxOMark's scores.
Let's do a little reality check, about the past 5 years in DxOMark-land and the past 5 years in the real world.
The year is 2007. Nikon has the D3 as a flagship and the D300 as the prosumer APS-C body. Canon has the 1DsIII and D40, respectively. DxOMark scores the D3 as 81, the 1DsIII as 80 - a meaningless difference, by their standards. The D300 scores a 67, while the 40D scores a 64 - that's starting to look like a real difference.
2008 saw Nikon enter the 'affordable' FF market with the D700, which DxOMark scores an insignificant 1 point higher than Canon's 5DII at 80 vs. 79. 2009 had updates to the high-end prosumer APS-C segment, and Nikon's D300S scores a 70, while Canon's 7D scores a 66. 2010 brought us mid-range APS-C updates, and while the 60D with the 7D's sensor scores a 66, the D7000 scores an 80, beating Canon's then-current FF sensors.
This year, the somewhat-less-affordable FF battle continues, with the 5DIII scoring 81, barely better than it's predecessor, while the D800/E scores a very impressive 95/96, soundly beating all Canon cameras as well as every other sensor DxOMark has ever tested, including medium format bodies with sensors with 2.5-times larger sensors.
So, it seems quite clear that over the past 5 years in DxOMark-land, Nikon has been dramatically improving, Canon has been stagnating, and Nikon is way ahead. But that's DxOMark-land. What about the real world?
Canon and Nikon are publicly traded companies, and as such, they publish their annual and quarterly reports (in the Investor Relations sections of their corporate websites). IDC (a market analysis firm) also publishes annual summaries of the market as a whole.
In 2007, Canon had 43% of the dSLR market, Nikon had 40%.In 2010, Canon had 44.5% of the dSLR market, Nikon had 29.8%.So, over years while Nikon was bringing us better sensors than Canon, Nikon was losing market share while Canon was gaining it. Ok, fine, but that's 2010. What about this year?
In 2Q2012 (by calendar year, they report it as 1QFY2013), Nikon had an 18% y/y growth of unit sales of dSLRs and lenses.In 2Q2012, (they report by CY, not FY), Canon had a 47% y/y growth of unit sales of dSLRs and lenses.
So, DxOMark has said Nikon has had better sensors for years, and the sales data show that Canon has sold more dSLRs and lenses for those same years, and continues to do so, as of the most recent data available. The straightforward conclusion from the above is that while DxOMark's Scores have a huge impact on the number of inflammatory posts on Internet discussion boards, they have no meaningful impact on the real world aggregate buying decisions of consumers.
If Consumer Reports gives one product a much higher rating that another product, that usually has a tangible impact on sales, i.e. those reports impact buying decisions. DxOMark has given Nikon higher ratings than Canon for years, and there does not appear to have been any impact of that on sales, i.e. they have no impact on buying decisions.
Given that:
a) there are flaws and ambiguity in their scores, not to mention some apparently aberrant results (e.g. Canon 70-200 II),
b) their scores apparently (according to them) should not be used to compare cameras of different resolutions,
c) they are scoring only sensor performance, which is just one part of camera performance
I would argue that not only do DxO's Scores have no impact on buying decisions in aggregate, they should have only a minor impact, if any at all, on personal buying decisions.
Their measurements are usually quite good (I say usually because of the above-referenced 70-200 II issue, where DxOMark are the only ones in the world who seem to think the MkI is better than the MkII, and chose not to test another copy but rather to defend their results, which really doesn't help their credibility).
What the last year plus has highlighted to me is that DxO Mark scores are completely irrelevant and meaningless.
If DxOMark is to be trusted, then there should be screams that PhaseOne are completely rubbish and that Nikon is ripping off people by selling any camera above $3000, as the D800 is the only camera anyone should buy willing to spend more than $3000 on and those under should go for the D600.
The DxO Analyser is not made for the photographers.It is for engineers and technicians.
If anyone is willing to argue in favour of DxOMark then I'd love to hear it.
>>> Why do you/don't you trust DxOMark's ratings?