> We need objective benchmarks for everything.

You might want to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which digs into this fallacy.

You might also be surprised how misleading objective IQ benchmarks are; the post processing in the camera's JPEG (and RAW processing... raw hasn't been raw for a long time) does a lot of stuff which is not well reflected by photographing a Siemens star.

Nikon has better sensors, but not so much better that it makes a noticeable difference. For a camera body you are looking for many things: features, durability, ergonomics, etc, but most of all you are looking for what glass works. If you've got a collection of Canon lenses, that Canon is what you should get. Lenses are easily the most important part of a photography rig, and Nikon is not the clear winner there.

It's pretty easy for camera makers to game dxomark.

They use those exact test images for tuning all their algorithms, and as a result end up with a camera which is great for those exact things tested, but might be lousy for the real world.

In France a retailer similar to BestBuy has a "Lab"[1] that usually has objective reviews, using a set of standards to compare items of the same category. Here's an example: [2], you can scroll to the conclusion to see the grades, but you also have an explanation behind it.

[1] http://labo.fnac.com/

[2] http://labo.fnac.com/video-photo-numerique/appareil-photo-re...

Aren't spec sheets objective benchmarks? Image quality can be subjective too. Also, the 70D might be $900, but that doesn't matter so much when someone has $4k worth of Canon equipment.

Personally I've found I enjoy purchases more by making fewer of them and worrying less about specification minutiae.

Does the product do what I want? Do I enjoy using it? Is it reliable? Done.

I feel the D5xxx series 5300, 5500 hit the sweet spot for me as a quasi casual photographer with its price, picture quality, amazing battery life and lightish weighing body. Felt slightly overpriced at $800 with 2 lenses for my budget. So far so good.

70D vs D3300 is not a fair comparison. 70D has features geared towards enthusiasts such as articulating screen, more AF points, weather sealing, mg-ally body, pentaprism viewfinder, etc. If these features are not important to you, you can choose the cheaper 700D for about ~$600. However, I do agree that for entry level cameras, Nikon cameras tend to provide more value for money.

There is no such thing as a truly "objective" benchmark, even for something as simple as a set of headphones. A DSLR camera is an order of magnitude more complex - it seems even less likely we'd be able to establish one for them.

There is a lot more to a DSLR than the image quality. Ergonomics and other features in a number of cases are much more important.

The problem with truly objective benchmarks is that it has both value and cost, meaning there becomes a market for the information itself, separate from the product.