that is why i have posted the link.
but i guess the 90% are to lazy to read it.....
I've read it, but it's little more than empty theorizing. Step wedge tests yield results that are consistent with the real world, whatever amount of noise you're willing to accept,
as long as you have the same noise standard for the wedge test and the real world. I can't find any combination of variables which cause real world results to match DxO's calculations.
According to DxO there's not much difference in DR between the 10D, 20D, and 7D (less than 1 stop). Before I even tested these bodies I could have told you, from real world experience shooting and processing thousands of frames, that their measurements were ridiculous. The amount by which DxO is off varies with each body, so it's not just a simple matter of DxO having a different noise floor. Their results are simply wrong.
But anyone who has compared a Nikon 5100 (DxO score: 80) with a Hasselblad H3DII 50 (DxO score: 78) could tell you that DxO is ridiculous.
BTW, every time someone points out how wrong DxO's test results are, someone else jumps in and claims "well, you have to understand the test. Read this link." No. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. DxO can't present a score which explicitly says A is better than B, then backtrack and say we don't understand the score if we think it means A is better than B. Same for individual tests with results stated using industry standard terms (i.e. DR in stops). If their scoring is confusing that's their fault, not the reader's. And if their test results fail to correspond to real world use, again that is their fault, not the reader's.