That would be because scoring lenses, sensors, or any other aspect of a camera is a ridiculous idea that completely decimates the consumers ability to make an EDUCATED choice about their camera purchasing decisions. Scoring hides all the details, and in the process throws away a lot of relevant information that is CRITICAL to making those decisions. DXO's lens scores are only valid within the context of DXO...they have no meaning in any other context, and are therefor valueless in a store when your holding two actual lenses in your hands. DXO's lens scores are obviously biased, as they "score" the ridiculously cheap low end 50mm f/1.4 higher than the ludicrously expensive ultra high end 600mm f/4 L II. Sensor scores completely ignore the rest of the complex systems that cameras actually are, making no allowance for anything like AF functionality, metering functionality, or even the aesthetic aspects of camera construction...ergonomics and menu systems.
No one has tried to replicate what DXO does...because what DXO does is inane.
Strange that I don't see any significant criticism anywhere except forums dominated by Canon owners. If DxO was so irrelevant then the disdain would be more widespread.
Oh, it's not just here. It's rather mild here...you should see the stuff people say about DXO over on DPR Forums!
Them ppls is crazy!
It isn't a matter of predicting it. We know exactly why it happens and how it happens.
Obviously not everyone shares the same defeatist attitude as you do and that they've put R&D efforts into understanding and combating it.
These concepts are very well understood. Deconvolution, waveform interference, aliasing and moire, etc. have all been researched heavily for decades. Most of the reason we haven't seen software tools for certain things is that we haven't had the computing power in the past. Deconvolution algorithms are complex, some highly complex. Specialized software in the past used to be the only way to get advanced tools like this, and they were usually very targeted (i.e. ONLY performing one or two types of denoising or deconvolution), and were usually so slow that the algorithms could take minutes or even much longer to complete.
Today we have significantly more computing power, such that it takes seconds or less to apply these complex algorithms to increasingly large images. A lot of that is also due to optimizations made to the algorithms, gaining speed, often at the cost of precision (most photographers don't need scientific accuracy.) So, things like moire removal are now showing up. It isn't because we suddenly learned something about moire. No...we already knew all about it. We've known about interference patterns for hundreds of years. We just have more computing power now. It's easier to make tools that address, or try to address, some of these kinds of problems now, because compute cycles in the billions per second exist on people's desktops as a matter of course these days.
There isn't a lot left to discover here. Not with bodies of research spanning decades. I guarantee you, Nikon won't be producing any miracle-working demoire algorithms any time soon. They may be able to get slightly better results with color moire removal (which, BTW, is currently what all moire algorithms are...they only remove the color aspect of the patterns, they don't actually remove the interference patterns.) They may be able to better identify which pixels and colors are primarily aliased, and only affect them, rather than desaturating and blurring pixels that aren't primarily aliased. That would certainly be an improvement, but it doesn't really change much in terms of how much of the moire pattern itself is removed.
The big question is...when there is already a highly effective means of preventing moire, and a means that introduces a PREDICABLE and DECONVOLVABLE pattern of blurring that can EASILY be reduced in post with a basic sharpening algorithm...why spend so much time, effort, and money removing AA filters, and even more trying to solve the problems moire creates in post?
It's a total, utter waste. Moire is a destructive, unpredictable form of image artifact that is unevenly distributed throughout your image. Those kinds of artifacts are the worst to deal with. They are the most complex, and the ones you really want to PREVENT, not REACT to. It's identification and effective removal is highly difficult in post. This is in contrast to simple high frequency blurring, which is highly predictable, evenly distributed, and extremely easy to counteract in post with either basic sharpening (effective, but not ideal) or more advanced deconvolution (wavelet deconv. or something similar, far more effective).
People are too concerned with sharpness, especially OOC sharpness. Sharpness is something we understand exceptionally well, and something for which we have some truly exceptionally powerful tools to enhance (just check out PixInsight...some of the tools in there are simply mindblowingly good.) Why obsesse over OOC sharpness, then have to DEAL with moire and other aliasing in post and WAIT for new and more advanced, power hungry algorithms to come out that...don't really solve the problem (not without being similarly destructive in other ways...such as blurring detail or by introducing OTHER kinds of artifacts)?
Optical low pass filters eliminate
moire, stop it before it occurs, and your images can be sharpened in post to be just as good as a camera without a filter. Again...inanity. It's totally inane to obsess over OOC sharpness and removal of AA filters when the problem was already solved!!