I'm just wondering, alot of people get REALLY worked up over these dxo tests, however theire numbers relating to various cameras (to me anyway) dont appear to reflect real world results take the medium format digital backs for example, these are simply amazing yet score lower than a sony or a nikon?
Personally i dont put any faith in this sort of analysis
Note: lucky i cant get smited to death by the DxO brigade
I take DXO results with a nice, big, honkin grain of salt most of the time. I like the ability to include consistently-generated (hmm, grain of salt there?) low-level hardware statistics as a factor in comparing like-brand cameras (i.e. I am looking forward to seeing if they measure any hardware-level improvements between the 5D II and III), as most of the time I figure that stuff should be pretty accurate. However when it comes to some of their numbers and some of their customers (i.e. Nikon), I become more and more skeptical. With their claim of 14.4 stops of "print" DR for the Nikon D800, some 2/3rds of a stop better than the sensor itself is capable of, I've become extremely skeptical of their numbers, and usually try to have a few big, honkin grains of salt handy at all times.
When it comes to DR, if you "expose correctly" in-camera for the scene you'll never actually use 12 stops, let alone 14. DXO's DR ratings are only useful if you are shooting a scene with extreme DR to start with, and you push the "expose to the right" (ETTR) technique to the absolute limits. Even then, human error and caution will prevent you from actually achieving the maximum possible DR as indicated by DXO. The only way to actually use all of a camera's available DR is to expose a scene you simply can't expose properly no matter how much headroom it has, in which case you'll always end up with unrecoverable blocked blacks and blown highlights.