Science and data do not tell the whole story. Sometimes the data can tell us what to expect or give us a concept, but in absolute terms, you can "never" say how anything is going to perform until you perform tests yourself. But no, you do not rely on review tests because your data is superior and/or your personal skill set for doing scientific tests of photographic tools is superior to any review site.
Let me know how the Sony A57 does compared to the NEX-5N//Pentax cams/and the Nikon D5100, all that share the same sensor. I'll gladly enjoy hearing about your results of the Sony at ISO 1600 vs. the others...While you are at it, tell me about all the past cams sharing same sensors and how they could possibly be vastly different iq wise in some cases (i.e. Fuji/Nikon, Oly/Panny/Leica, Sony/Nikon, etc.)...even what was thought to be identical cams in the point and shoot world had very different results...why or how if they are the same cam?
I'm surprised a Photography Guru would even look at a silly site like DXO
)))). Maybe time to study ULF for a while and come back when you have sufficient technical data to back your claims.
um.. the sony a57 has a translucent mirror. this drastically affects the light hitting the sensor. it's not a valid comparison.
but the rest of the camaeras using that 16megapixel sony sensor are all very similiar.