The single-most damning flaw is that they don't publish their exact process, so that their numbers are only black magic to others.
DXO are in the business of marketing their own RAW converter. I imagine that the exact processes they use to get their measurements will be patented. The'tool' they use to get their measurements is called a "DXO Analyzer". The information they gather about a sensor is crucial to the design of their RAW converter. Do camera manufacturers publish full details of their sensor technology? C'mon! Be sensible!
However, DXO
do publish broad descriptions of their methodology, under the heading 'Technologies'. There, for example, they describe the two different ways of measuring ISO sensitivity (in accordance with ISO standard 12232) and tell you which method
they use, which is 'sensitivity for full saturation'. For those who are interested in maths, there are a also few formulas there to get excited about.
I didn't say that you did. I said that Gabor was saying that resolution was important.
Everyone reading this thread knows that resolution is important. I knew that resolution is important when I was a small boy running around in short pants. Why criticise a review for the aspects of camera performance that are
not addressed. DXO also do not address price, weight and waterproofing, which are also important factors. I don't need to be told that the P65+ has higher resolution than the D3X. I can work that out for myself. However, I
cannot work out for my self that the D3X has a higher DR than the P65+ without going to a lot of trouble and expense in hiring equipment. This is the sort of information that is therefore valuable.
Sensor resolution very closely follows pixel count. I'm not aware of any sensor with a significantly higher pixel count than another which also does not deliver higher resolution than the other. When sensors have a similar pixel count, there will likely be some variation in resolution depending on the strength of the AA filter, or whether the sensor has one or not. However, sensor resolution is also affected by the brand of RAW converter used, and perhaps more significantly, the 'system' resolution of any 'real-world' image, which most practicing photographers would consider more important, will depend very much on the quality of the lens used. There are probably very good reasons why DXO have not addressed resolution.
Man, you are one of the worst readers I have ever seen! What do you think I set up three variables in three unknowns for? I even said so: to find out what the weights are. The weights made no sense, and it throws even more doubt onto their claims when one can't even figure out how they combine their three individual ratings into their one final rating.
I'll go back and figure out the rating weights again, and see if they have fixed anything.
It won't necessarily help you if you figure out the rationale behind their weighting, or the algorithm used to determine a single-figure value. The essential point about a weighting process is that there is a
subjective opinion at its core. If you discover the method by which they arrive at those single-figure assessments, you will at least be in a position to determine if DXO are consistent in the application of their ratings, but you may disagree completely with the subjective decision behind their approach.
That is why I ignore their 'overview' ratings, and I would recommend you do too. The results that count are under the five headings, ISO Sensitivity, SNR 18%, DR, Tonal Range, Color Sensitivity. DXO provide full definitions of those terms. I can't understand why you are complaining .
If you think any of their figures (apart from the subjective weightings) are way out, please demonstrate the fact and provide the evidence. That's not too much to ask is it?