Which all really boils down to people beat up on DxO here because it doesn't make them feel good about the equipment they've bought.
No. I bash DxO because their numbers are MEANINGLESS.
Just because their are "formulas" and "calculations" does not mean the measurements are either accurate or correct. As an example I can come up with a formula that uses a standard IQ test, but some of the questions deal with color, so a colorblind person will always be handicapped and measured low. Has nothing to do with their intelligence, but does show that as a whole the numbers are really meaningless.
As an example... Which is a better Camera - Nikon D600 or Nikon D4?
Which is better? Sony Cybershot DSC-RX1 or Nikon D3X?
Nikon D5200 of Nikon D3S?
So remember... In terms of Raw performance...
If you bought a Nikon D4 when you could have bought a D600, you are an idiot
If you are a pro and still using the lousy D3X when you could be using a Cybershot DSC-RX1, you are a fool
Have a D3S instead of D5200? TOOL!
Afterall... That is what DXO said are better sensors. Which are actual better cameras?
Nikon D600 or Canon 1Dx???
And sorry... I have used both of those, and the 1Dx is 10x the camera the D600 is in what it can produce, though DXO tries to say the D600 has a sensor that is 15% better than the 1DX.
Again, just because there is a test, does not mean it is relevant... I can come up with a benchmark that says the Kia Optima and Ford Fusion are 40% better than the Lamborghini in engine performance based on fuel efficiency... Which do you want in a race?
So tell you what - If you think DXO Mark numbers are so relevant - go out to Fashion Week in NY and find the Pro photographers... you know... the ones making the serious big bucks and try and trade them their D4, D3X etc for a D600 and show them the DXO marks and tell them how much better the sensor is in Raw Performance and see what they say. Better yet,video it and post it.