'DxO has no credibility'.... who says? You and a couple of others here who don't like the results they publish, and just don't understand that DxO CANNOT AFFORD TO BULLSHIT...
Anyway, the 1Dx is an absolutely unbelievably good camera. It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.
I hope you see the obvious self-contradiction in what you wrote
Wow, you don't have a clue, do you. I write that the 1Dx is "not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations".
In what way does that contradict anything else I wrote?
I'll write it again, to make sure you get it this time: Canon did not make the 1Dx to score one way or the other in any test, Canon made it to be an incredibly good camera at what it does. And Canon succeeded.
So, according to you, (i) DXOMark results are accurate (ii) Canon 1DX produces fantastic results REGARDLESS of its DXOMark scores.
This means whatever DXOMark measures is USELESS since their results have no correlation to real world results. Correct?
Wow, you really are confused.
If the DxO figures rumored are in fact the official DxO results, then the numbers mentioned are exceptionally high and the 1Dx gets fantastic results.
Remember, DxO are testing the SENSOR - not the camera.
The camera obviously is fantastic - and, according to DxO, so is the sensor. The numbers are stellar.
That the D600 and D800 get even higher marks (for their SENSORS) has got nothing to do with anything in this situation - they're a different kind of camera.
The 1Dx is made specifically for low light work and other difficult situations. The D600 and D800 are definitely not made for this.
So - what was your point again? In what way are DxO not credible? Be specific now, explain your point with some kind of useful argument other than 'DxO is a joke' - as infared put it.
Very erudite, to say the least