According to DxO Mark, the Nikon D3300 and the Canon 1DX are the same?
How come the entry-level D3300 has a Dxo score the same as the pro-level Canon 1DX? The both have a score of 82.
I'm just a bit confused.
Thanks,
The only conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from your observations are:
1. The Nikon is a whole lot better than you would expect
2. The Canon is a whole lot worse than you would expect
3. Camera bodies these days are all so good you can barely slide a cigarette paper between them.
4. These comparison sites are a meaningless heap of carp.
I personally go with number 4 with a very heavy sprinkling of number 3
Think real world!
Put an L series lens on the 1DX. Put a £60 kit lens on the D3300.
Take 'em out in the rain.
What price your equal scores now?
Sensor wise they may be similar, but don't forget the other specs
The 1DX:
-Can do 14fps burst
-Has a larger viewfinder
-Has better ISO performance
-Can go up to 205k ISO
-Has REAL cross focus points
-Has more focus points
-Is weather sealed
-Has a faster shutter speed
-Has a prism view finder
-Metal chassis
The only reason the D3300s sensor is on par with the 1DX's is because the 1DX is 3 years older than the D3300
The scores seem to mean nothing. Nobody knows how DxOMark works out the scores. They don't actually tell anyone how they work it out - it's a big secret - I can only assume they don't do so for fear of embarrassing themselves. Without knowing exactly how it's worked out, the score is useless. They might as well pick a score out of thin air. What they do admit to is that the only thing they test is the sensor, not the camera, or it's features.
However, the measurements graph on ISO sensitivity versus dynamic range are much more revealing of the Canon sensor's superiority in low light. Which is totally unsurprising since it's a full frame camera. Not to mention the fact the D3300 can only shoot 12bit RAWs, unlike all Canon DSLRs (even the basic ones) which shoot 14bit RAWs - another factoid conveniently swept under the carpet.
I note that the D3300 is quite close to other similar recent Canon entry levels, which is to be expected since they are all APS-c cameras, certainly much closer to the entry levels than it is to any modern full frame Canon camera. And yet DxO marks Canon consistently lower by almost 10 points. Perhaps they did pluck that score out of thin air after all.
Anyhoo here's the graph for the D3300 versus 1DX. I'd say that's not a bad performance for sensor developed 3 years ago. The Nikon can clearly be seen to go downhill rapidly after ISO 400. 
If you ask any scientist or statistician to look at DxO data, he/she will laugh until drop down.
DxO data, in term of scientific-level reliablity, is definitely ZERO.
To be reliable, the data must be measured from different objects, as much as possible. Usually, the minimum number is 30.
How much cameras does DxO use to measure the value? ONE. Only one!
And they tell the world - that one datum is reliable.
Well, I don't buy it. Hope you not, too.
The score is based solely on the sensor and nothing else. It would be like comparing cars solely by their emissions of green-house gasses. In which case a golf cart that runs completely on batteries and has zero emissions would score much higher than a Ferrari. Now, which would you rather be driving a golf cart or a Ferrari? And that's about the usefulness of DxO Mark scores.
That's because DxO Mark is only testing the quality of the sensor. Are the two sensors equal? Well, not exactly: The D3300 has far superior dynamic range, while the 1DX has far superior low-light performance. Overall, it's a wash if you ask DxO Mark. But that's just a weighted average.
As others have said, the quality of the sensor is only one small aspect of the features of the camera. You can have two cameras with the exact same sensor but with one being several times more expensive than the other. Other important features include: autofocus system, video features, burst rate, etc…