OK, I kind of understand why the low score for the 5D. Not sure I agree, but I can accept it.
But I still question some of their conclusions. For instance, I was just looking at 3 prime lenses: the Nikkor 105 micro, the Nikkor 50 1.4G, and the Canon EF 1.8 II. Now, this is basically an unfair comparison as the 105 and the Canon 1.8 are completely different class of lens. In theory, there should be some points for build quality, speed and accuracy of focus, etc. But by the specs they report, the 105 is better in resolution, distortion, and vignetting, but worse by transmission and CA. The 50 1.4 is, on the otherhand, better transmission, but worse or the same in every other category. How is it that they both have better overall scores? I can't see how the math would work unless you add a bunch of points for having the name Nikon somewhere in the equation.