You can read at DxO which numbers and factors they use. There are factors they leave out of the evaluation as well and they tell you this. The weight they apply to the three factors they use to arrive at the number score, is arrived at and determined by DxO. Why should we believe that the way they arrive at this average score is correct for how a sensor should be evaulated and scored? Is it because they "claim" to be the leader in sensor testing?
The way they choose to weight those factors is subjective
. Therefore it is neither correct, nor incorrect. If you demand hard numbers as opposed to the wishy-washy subjective stuff, you will insist on seeing the measurements. I would feel very differently about DxO if they only showed us their summary numbers and not the underlying measurements.
As far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to publish whatever subjective summaries they like, though I don't care for these myself. Ultimately these I see as just another opinion -- well informed of course, but still just an opinion. There are other smart people who will have different opinions. The only opinion I care much for is my own after seeing the data.
When I first went to DxO to use the information they provide to compare Canon cameras it was years ago and, Nikon only had few in the top ten.
So I don't understand how they are trying to be "misleading" or what their alleged purpose is.
Then there is the description "landscape" or "sports" they use, rather than calling the test what it is actually for. Why don't they describe the test for what it is, and then imply this is important for that activity. With landscaping DR is not the only thing that matters, why apply the name landscape to high DR?
I think the full name of the tests are (the parenthetical remarks are part of the name)
portrait (color depth),
landscape (dynamic range),
ports (low-light ISO)
I don't see what the problem is -- those who know what the technical terms mean, you can simply look past the non-technical ones. For those who don't, omitting the non-technical terms doesn't help a whole lot.
I find DxO's presentation of the data to miss leading. Any time a large company chooses to put out data that on the surface appears to miss lead the general public I think you have to question their motives.
I still don't get who they are misleading and what they are trying to get their "victims" to do. So far we don't have a plausible motive for this alleged deception. According to the originator of this thread, no-one is fooled anyway, so not only we don't have a cause, we don't see an effect either. All we have is some grumbling from disgruntled camera fans, and additionally the fact that you take issue with some perceived inaccuracies in the way they summarize their data.