DSLRbodies: Do you Believe in DxOMark?

It’s interesting to note that DxO seems to be playing a lot of angles. First, they are presenting themselves as impartial, numeric oriented testers (e.g. the scores). Second, they are presenting themselves as reviewers (e.g. “If Canon could only address performance at base and low ISO, the EOS 7D Mk II would make a thoroughly convincing all-round choice, but in this category the Sony A77 II looks to be the more compelling option.”). Third, they sell their test equipment and software test suites to camera companies (Nikon, for instance, but I don’t believe Canon is one of their clients). Fourth, they present themselves as the best demosaic option, better than the camera makers’ options (e.g., DxO Optics Pro). They have some clear conflicts of interests that are not easily resolved. So be careful of just gobbling up their “results” as absolutes.

Thom's cracked out another great read for the measurement-reliant gearheads that have been bashing Canon's new 7DII.

Nikon Df vs D800 vs Canon 6D high ISO test at DPReview

DPReview reader, Horshack, tested Nikon's Df, D800, and Canon's 6D at ISO speeds from 3.200 to 102.400. The output of each camera was down-sampled to 8MP. The results are both surprising and not.  It is clear, however, that Nikon's files are friendly to heavy digital pushing than are Canon's files.

When asked why he chose to test ISO speeds of up to 102.400, Horshack explained that it:

illustrates the thermal noise issues with the active electronics on the Exmor chips pretty clearly. It would be very interesting to compare the images after performing a proper black-frame subtraction on the D800 files. It is possible to mitigate that noise, and even though it takes some extra work, the results can be very nice.

For obvious reasons, I think LENR should be an option for D600/D800 users full time.
— http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3585847

The below image represents what each camera is capable of at ISO 100 with a five-stop digital push.