Emil,
First of all, DxOmark have actually only tested a small minority of recent/current MFDBs/MFDSLRs. And they show no inclination to test any older models; only some new releases. But people keep using the old ones; they have greater longevity, both physically and in terms of desirability, than DSLRs. And second-hand older ones are the usual entry point for MFD among amateurs, etc. We deserve to know how these units perform, too.
I am indeed aware of sensorgen.info. It's a brilliant idea, with tremendously useful information (I go to it sooner than I go to DxOmark). But it is a bit limited in what it tells you, because it inherits DxOmark's limitations.
Here are a few extra things that my tests will address:
- DxOmark/Sensorgen do not tell you about how many bits of data are actually used.
- They do not tell you about raw manipulation, like zero clipping.
- They do not give the gain/ADU at the different ISOs [this could probably be worked out from their data, however]
- They do not give any indication of dark current / long exposure performance (I'm not addressing that yet, but intend to do so in time, as it's hugely important in MFD)
- They do not give any indication of sample variance from unit to unit.
- They do not give any indication of count/percentage of defective pixels (again, that won't be my focus initially, but it's there to be seen in the data)
- There are also strange anomalies in some DxOmark/Sensorgen measurements, which need further independent investigation. For example, look at the Pentax 645D in Sensorgen: why does the readnoise suddenly jump up, apparently almost double, in going from ISO 800 to 1600?! (And the less said about the Nikon D3100's readnoise of "0.0 electrons", the better!)
Ray