I did mention a few times prior to D800 testing that DxO suggested Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS mark 1 was sharper than mark 2. Even after forum complaints there that the results could not be correct, DxO maintained that there was nothing wrong with the results.
This is probably the only source that suggests mark 1 was sharper than mark 2. I am not suggesting DxO is necessarily biased, but something does not seem right. Perhaps their testing just does not have enough coverage to give a realistic picture?
Either case, I look at their figures but never rely on them for any purchase...
A couple thoughts come to mind...
For me it was not so much the Nikon D800 score, but it was that score relative to other cameras I know to be better and more capable. If you go by DxO, the D4 and D3s are S___e compared to the D800 which is just not true. Then when you throw the whole MF quality into the mix... Yes, the MFs may bot be designed for High ISO per se, but does beg to question the ability to quantitatively measure IQ
In someways reminds me of CDs versus LPs, and while "Digital" is supposed to capture and be so reproduceable, the audiophiles still find magic in the outdated LPs for sound quality.
Not to bring film versus digital back in the mix, but I do think that it is possible to produce a camera that "tests" well but whose IQ to the eye does not meet with the same judgement.
To me this diminishes the value of DxO since they are telling me a new BMW outperforms a new Ferrari
Is the D800 a better camera than the D4? DxO says it is by a big margin.
You can tell me Rosie O'donnell is hotter than Olivia Wilde, I'll say you just have a thing for fat chicks who aren't funny