And I will reiterate again, that their ISO score is weighted toward the base ISO, and not at more moderate levels
Completely wrong, please review their method for ISO score. The dynamic range and color depth scores use base ISO. The ISO score is the highest ISO that meets a number of image quality criteria (the highest for which a certain noise level and dynamic range are maintained)
And then there's the downsampling to 8 megapixels...certainly that helps the D800...a ton! It's also a meaningless method of scoring noise.
Also not true. Normalizing to a common resolution is completely sensible unless you're always viewing 100% crops. The typical use case is to ultimately print images at the same size or otherwise rescale the image to the same size. To do otherwise is a "pixel peeping" approach. They have "screen DR" so that you can also see the per-pixel results, but these are not as meaningful.
If it scores less than 10 points behind the D800E, then in reality, it's actually 10 points ahead..
I don't think so -- perhaps you can show us your industry leading benchmark that demonstrates this.
.and why give the 800E one more point just for not having an anti aliasing filter? The sensors are THE SAME...
The anti-aliasing filter obviously has some impact on noise properties of the image. You wouldn't expect an enormous difference but then the test doesn't show an enormous distance so I don't really understand this complaint.
If average people like me can predict the outcome of a test, 6 months or more before the product is even announced in the public domain, while it is still a rumor...then you have to admit, it does smack of favoritism and intentionally skewed test results.
Maybe it just means that average people can predict how well the next sensor from each major manufacturer will perform. Given the relatively slow trajectory in sensor improvements, today's performance is a pretty good predictor of tomorrow's performance.
I mean, the little Nikon D5200 scores 2 points better than the 1Dx...GET F***ING REAL...
Canon's low ISO noise hurts them because the aggregate score is heavily weighted towards low ISO performance. The 1DX has substantially better high ISO performance but that is not the only factor the overall score takes into account. The 1DX also has a number of features that are important to serious photographers, but these don't enter into the test either.
That's like saying a Prius scores higher than a Ferrari 458 because it gets better gas mileage,
Well, what do you mean by "scores higher" ? Trying to assign a single numerical "score" to something complex is always a difficult task. Here's one -- should a Mazda Miata score "better" or "worse" than a Honda accord ?
The reason they do report a single aggregate score is that many users do not want to dig deeper. But for those who are, they publish all the underlying measurements.
or because the driver tends to obey the speed limit more closely. The test is just wrong, skewed to portray a "truth" that is too narrow in its scope to have the meaning that many think it does.
The test is just fine. You are confusing the test with the score. You may disagree with the way the factors are aggregated, but they do provide their measurements for you so that you can get the most out of their tests even if you don't agree with the weighting scheme (or if you want to understand why the results came out the way they did).
The notion that the test is intentionally biased in favor of Nikon is just silly. DxO devised their test score and methods before Canons struggles with low ISO performance became the elephant in the room.