I have wondered for a while about the possibilities that DXO and Nikon are tied at the hips. It looks like the ratings are heavily skewed towards what Nikon is good at and completely ignores what Canon is good at. After all, a Nikon 7100 beats a Canon 1DX in the sensor ratings..... yet in the real world, how many people are going to upgrade a 1DX with a 7100?
when you look at the specs for the two cameras on DXO, and you look at autofocus (the place where Canon really shines) you find that the Nikon 7100 has "Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S); Continuous-servo AF (AF-C); auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A); predictive focus tracking activated automatically according to subject status. Manual focus (MF): Electronic rangefinder can be used " while the Canon 1DX has "One Shot AI Servo ".
And drive modes.... the Nikon does 6 frames per second and the 1DX does 12.... so what does DXO say?
Nikon 7100 - Continuous low-speed [CL] mode; 1-6 frames per second Continuous high-speed [CH] mode; 6 frames per second Interval timer photography supported Mirror-up [Mup] mode Quiet Shutter Release Self-timer mode Single-frame
Canon 1DX - Single, Continuous L, Continuous H, Self timer (2s+remote, 10s+remote), Silent single shooting
Tell me that isn't biased......
I actually really doubt there's any collusion between Nikon and DxO. Their Scores are biased, but there's a logic to that bias (still...bias is bias, and they don't make it obvious). I also take issue with their 'black box' formulas.
As for the specs issues, the Nikon ones are copies straight from Nikon's website, as are the Canon drive mode spec (yes, DxO really should have listed comparable specs including fps). The AF mode DxO lists for the 1D X differs from the Canon USA spec, likely they took it from the EU site. Good thing, though - Canon USA says the 1D X also has AI Focus, and it doesn't...a typographical error on Canon's part.
Of course, DxO could have made 'honest errors' but as I said, their history argues against them. For example, when called on their mistake of stating the 70-200/2.8L IS II was not as good as the MkI lens it replaced, they defended their conclusion and explicitly stated no mistake was made...then a year later, they silently replaced the original data with new data supporting the opposite (and correct) conclusion.