Thanks to all for the responses (and thanks especially to Eric and Bernard for providing some additional insight as to how Len/SenScore work).
I agree the "sum total" scores of Sen/LenScore are not the most valuable scores to read, but their easily-switched Individual Criteria Columns are, which become especially useful because it is a cinch switch to
to the categories that matter (to me/you).
As far as I am concerned, the DxO mark setup is less intuitive and less complete.
It seems to be setup by people who measure a very limited range statistics, and who may not actually be
using the cameras in the real world.
For example, Base ISO measurements have almost zero relevance to a nature photographer (bird photographer/macro shooter).
I honestly don't know of
any bird photographer or nature photographer who uses ISO 80 or 100 in their image-making. It simply almost never happens.
I personally enjoy macro photography, and I try my best to stick to natural light, so it is difficult to shoot below ISO 320.
(When you get extremely close to a tiny object, even if it is completely motionless, your available light is drastically-reduced).
Typically, there is always the possibility for movement, so I can only drop my shutter speed so low before I run the risk of the subject (usually an insect or spider) moving, changing positions, or even being affected by wind.
As a macro shooter, my primary hot buttons are
resolution and
bokeh, trying to get as much detail as possible of the subject, while blurring the background, with color and contrast being important elements also.
(Most subjects don't have a super-wide color gamut, but some do.)
Higher ISO capability is something I need to upgrade to, because I am
not enjoying this right now with my 7D (I can't go above 640 without wanting to junk the file, so I am pretty much "stuck" at shooting between ISO 320 and 640 right now).
The scores across the board for my antiquated 7D are accelerating my desire to get rid of it, and finally make an upgrade, but the thought of "switching systems" has not been much of a motivator, as I really like the Canon lenses. (However, the excellence of Sigma has made me abandon 2 Canon lenses lately ...)
When it first came out, the Sony A 7R II originally seemed like the perfect solution (specs-wise), because it has the Exmor sensor
and can be compatible with Canon lenses ... however for people who use cameras for nature photography, most of the reports in actual field use have been photographers "loving the images" (in the shots they "do get" with the Sony A7R II) ... but they can't stand
to use it (poor ergonomics, etc.).
Right now, I am able to get plenty of decent shots with my 7D, but I am wanting to elevate from "decent" to spectacular, and I am wanting my next camera purchase to last me for a few years (not just one season).
I am not necessarily "brand loyal" (as my favorite macro lens is a Sigma 180), but I neither do I want to jump ship without careful consideration.
I was excited about the Canon 7D II, but (ultimately) while offering great ergonomic features, the 7D II simply ranks too low (across the board) in image quality for me to be satisfied with the purchase.
To me, all the bells and whistles in the world fall short if the
image-quality is only so-so.
When I first got the original Canon 7D, it was a class-leading APS-C camera, but it has fallen so far behind now, that I need to pull the trigger and upgrade.
I have been tolerating the so-so image quality of my 7D for a couple of years, and now there is the recent Canon 5DS R to consider.
The DxO specs on the 5DS R (and several reviews from landscape photographers) didn't help my feeling of letdown on the new Canon FF ...
However, after hearing what many
macro shooters have had to say about the 5DS R, and in going over the SenScore specs, I am 99% positive I will be buying the 5DS R by springtime.
If the Nikon D810 has been the benchmark (for landscape shooters), for a number of years, then the 5DS R has to be the macro shooter's benchmark.
While the 5DS R may still fall short of the D810 in some important respects, as a landscape camera, to me it surpasses the D810 as a macro photography camera.
Let's face it,
resolution is everything in macro photography (that and bokeh).
And, in Resolution, the 5DS R beats the D810 by a wide margin (1357 to 1051) ... not to mention beating my 7D by a country mile (1357 to 475).
I am not worried about the D810 beating the 5DS R in Dynamic Range (1028 to 850), because I will not even bother taking a natural light macro shot unless I have
even light.
Therefore, "High Dynamic Range" means nothing to me; it has no relevance to the way I shoot.
However, one thing that
does bother me is the fact the D810 is listed as having the better
Color Range (1073 in the Nikon to a measly 751 in the Canon). That really does bother me
Still, the Color Range rating for the 5DS R (751) is a vast improvement over the rating for my current 7D (105
). Therefore, although the 5DS R rating is low, I am encouraged by the fact I have taken some pretty colorful photos with my 7D ... so I should be exhilarated at what the 5DS R can do, with more than 5x the color range of the 7D. (Also makes me wonder how much of the "theoretical" color potential is actually see-able by the human eye ...)
More than this, as far as Noise Levels go, the 5DS R beats the D810 (1041 to 1010) and in Tonal Range the 5DS R again edges the D810 (1041 to 1035).
Realistically, they're both nearly identical in these respects.
Therefore, for a macro shooter, the Canon 5DS R is actually the better camera than the D810.
While it is lacking in respect to color, I am not sure what the
real-world difference is in the color disparity.
The DR makes zero difference, while the Canon surpasses the D810 in every other category, most importantly in Resolution (and widely-so).
My sticking point is the color issue. Color is important, and some insect/spider species have scintillating, metallic colorations.
That said, despite the fact that my own Canon 7D has a lowly Color Rating of 105, I have gotten a gazillion compliments on the "colors" of my images, and have been well-pleased with the colors myself.
So I believe the color range of the 5DS R will be more than enough.
The bottom line is, I have *always* been chagrined by the LACK of total resolution in my images, as there is no way around the fact the 7D is a "soft" camera.
Even while using a tripod, and a remote switch, highly-critical precision-focus of tiny subjects remains a challenge for me.
I am therefore quite sure that elevating from my Camera Resolution Score from 475 (in the 7D) to a class-leading score of 1357 (in the 5DS R) will make my macro photography take a quantum leap forward.
In closing, my apologies for "thinking out loud" here, but I hope it helps some others with their own "chin-rubbing" as to weighing the different criteria as to their next purchase.
In the end, I believe the DxO Mark system of scoring sensors is limited in value, and ultimately very misleading in their conclusions.
I think the LenScore/SenScore site is much more user-friendly, and much more helpful and realistic, in assessing the Lenses and Sensors in a more "real world"-applicable way, so I am glad Bernard shared this resource with me because it is definitely bookmarked.
Jack