BlueBomberTurbo

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

More like the silent majority. The ones that don't look like idiots when posting on forums/social media like the average Liberal does.  

I am not American, and I think Trump says the strangest things. But, he is arguably the most successful US president of all time. I may not be a Trump fan, but I prefer him over both the Clintons, Obama and many others. Obama getting the Nobel for farting in his dreams was way more shady than anything else. EVER. 
The US has been heading for a financial collapse for the last few years (since the Dollar Store and Wallmark rise). Now China is literally taking away millions of US jobs and Fortune 500 is inundated with Chinese Companies. Apple would have been relegated to 4th or 5th position in smartphone sales, if the US wasnt doing all the shady stuff it is (to be fair, US Trade and IP Laws have been anything but fair since they were created). Also TikTok and other chinese tech startups are going to be displacing Twitter and Facebook (even though it doesn't do similar things to either) very soon. That's why Google is planning a TikTok ban soon (if it hadn't already). 
Europe and the US are heading for both economic and cultural collapse. The only question, I guess, is how quickly. 

Wading into politics in this heavily polarized & heated environment is a good way to lose half of your readership.

Nobody needs you.

From John Gruber (Daring Fireball):
“This is how Apple chose to unveil the packaging for the Mac Pro — in a poorly-shot overexposed propaganda video by the White House, scored with bombastic music that sounds like it came from an SNL parody of a Michael Bay film. Think about how it feels to work on that team at Apple.”
“A low moment in Apple’s proud history, and a sadly iconic moment for Tim Cook. I hope avoiding those tariffs is worth it.”
BEAUTIFULLY GRADED!
Apple’s latest ad is a brave new direction for the Cupertino tech giant’s brand.
To celebrate, I have created the EOSHD Tim Apple LUT.
The favoured look of the US President is perfect for factory tour videos or nationalist propaganda.
The LUT has a muted, washed, bleached contrast with no life and no joy in it. So if that’s what your scene demands, be sure to use the EOSHD Tim Apple LUT today.
Download the Tim Apple LUT (.cube format, free of charge, but at cost to your soul, 100% tested with Final Cut Pro X, Premiere and Resolve)
"I Can't wait to see What you guys creates [sic] with this fantastic LUT" - Donald

Hey guys! I made these footages in order to test the new EOSHD Pro Color 3.0 and I'm loving it, by the way, It was a sunny and really warm day.
 

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off.  There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited:
NX500 over 5DS and NX1:  I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department.  I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1.  By how much, I don't know.  But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200.
  DXO One:  Its Super RAW literally is super.  It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise.  The difference is dramatic.  While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability.  This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size.
  D3X over D5:  The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III.  Even crop sensors beat it.  The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far.  The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW.  Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation.
  D600 over 1DX II and P40+:  It's true.  The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up.  the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors.  High ISO is also neck and neck.

Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old.  Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin.  By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO.
  D3s and D700:  I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point.  It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best.  The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. 

Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own.  Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f.  All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings.  If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO.  My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810.  #IQsnob.
For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount.  How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise.  So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software.  Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice.
And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered.  Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective.  Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.