In the past they wrote an article on how the S95's sensor performed better than that of the D3s. Does that sound like bias towards Nikon to you?
And does that sound like a remotely
credible conclusion to you?
I don't think DxO is "biased" per se
but I do believe that their methodology is inherently
skewed against Canon sensor technology, and not necessarily in a fair - or significant-to-the-end-result - way.
Someone else has suggested he'd expect that in Real World use
, there'd be very little between the 7D and D7000: I can say with absolute rock-solid certainty
that he's right, because I've torture-tested umpteen D7000 files in comparison to my 7D's output (I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with someone who regularly uses a D7000) and in actual use
there's absolutely sweet FA to choose between them - even when hammering the shadows in PP - once you're beyond 100 ISO.
Yet that tiny little advantage
- the extra usable DR at base ISO - gets the D7000 a hugely "superior" DxO rating, which is utterly irrelevant
in the Real World.
Frankly, I couldn't give a toss about what DxO has to say about either the D800 or the 5D Mk III: my eyes
tell me what I need to know, and everything I've seen so far suggests that while each will have its strengths, neither will be significantly better than the other at the image level.
And nothing else