That is why it is said: "Statistics is the prostitute of mathematics". And also: "Statistics is a form of lying, using numbers". What is the use of a collection of correct data, if the end result will be totally subjective score, and mysterious criteria?
DXO measures the sensor characteristics. Those are hard facts.
No, they are the results of DxO's testing process and interpretations. There's quite a bit of disagreement as to whether or not DxO's tests are accurate and/or meaningful.
I do not think there is much disagreement that their sensor tests, methods, and results are accurate and meaningful (at least for some uses). The disagreements are to 1) whether the reported scores (scores, as opposed to test results) are fair, useful, meaningful or what-have-you 2) whether the differences matter for a given user and 3) the fact the DxO only measures sensor performance, not camera performance (and does not claim to do anything different).
This is left to the intelligence of the reader. The "end result" has nothing to do with statistics, it is some kind of cumulative score for readers who are too busy to try to understand the data. The data is there for everybody who cares; the score is not data and every intelligent user would ignore it.
The scores/numbers should at least represent the data ?
Regardless of ones intelligence , some people are not interested or don't have the time to interpret the data themselves. I think DXO should deserve credit for conducting all these tests, if you agree or disagree with their scores/data shouldn't matter. They are putting in a lot of time and effort and if you do disagree , set up an experiment and try to disprove them rather than bashing them because your camera doesn't score the highest:P( this is just a general opinion of me, not aimed at you at all pi)
Still I think the score is derived from data and should not necessarily be ignored, since the score should represent (some of) the data.
For example; does anyone know where the image quality of a sensor is based on @ dxo?
95 vs 82 image quality, sensor 1 has around 20% better image quality.
To be honest I never value that score, because I have no clue where it is based on
(Resolution? DR? Noise? , no clue).
In that aspect I agree that scores should be ignored , they might have made up some formula with several variables and come up with such a score. again I have no clue how they get the number.
On the other hand , thins like
2.853 ISO or 2.340 ISO don't have to be ignored, If it's shot RAW and was a good test ( so repeated by others with the same result), that is enough information for me.