03-11-2011, 10:13 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1299826015' post='6666']
So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)
Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)
Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.
It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)
Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.
cheerio
Klaus
[/quote]
While I do not agree with the provocative ways of genotypewriter, I do think that it is not unscientific at all to just show, side by side, actual image results and analyze what one actually sees there.
However, this of course is a limited view on a lens, genotypewriter only looks at how they perform wide open and with limited scope even there (see for instance the bokeh test image, which is not a telling "subject" image).
I do value the information photozone's reviews give, but of course things can always be improved on.
For instance, what usually gives the biggest "impact" on people IQ wise is that hard to get a hold on quality of "colour" and contrast. Contrast is not being tested.
And then there is the rating system, which apparently makes it matter a bit which reviewer is rating a lens. Another point of attention should be the inconsistencies in getting the measurements, as illustrated by the Zeiss 35mm f2 tests, where it is possible for one reviewer to get strangely lower CA measurements than the other, I think that should be seriously looked into.
Maybe it has to do with that the measuring method of the software is not very reliable (my guess).
So, where I would like to see improvements:
- Contrast valuation
- Veiling test with out of view light sources
- More reliable CA assessment
- Maybe do vignetting via RAW with known tonal curve, because now it says more about the body being used than the actual lens.
But, as I said before, I do value your review work, for me it is always part of the puzzle of assessing how good certain lenses actually are.
So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)
Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)
Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.
It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)
Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.
cheerio
Klaus
[/quote]
While I do not agree with the provocative ways of genotypewriter, I do think that it is not unscientific at all to just show, side by side, actual image results and analyze what one actually sees there.
However, this of course is a limited view on a lens, genotypewriter only looks at how they perform wide open and with limited scope even there (see for instance the bokeh test image, which is not a telling "subject" image).
I do value the information photozone's reviews give, but of course things can always be improved on.
For instance, what usually gives the biggest "impact" on people IQ wise is that hard to get a hold on quality of "colour" and contrast. Contrast is not being tested.
And then there is the rating system, which apparently makes it matter a bit which reviewer is rating a lens. Another point of attention should be the inconsistencies in getting the measurements, as illustrated by the Zeiss 35mm f2 tests, where it is possible for one reviewer to get strangely lower CA measurements than the other, I think that should be seriously looked into.
Maybe it has to do with that the measuring method of the software is not very reliable (my guess).
So, where I would like to see improvements:
- Contrast valuation
- Veiling test with out of view light sources
- More reliable CA assessment
- Maybe do vignetting via RAW with known tonal curve, because now it says more about the body being used than the actual lens.
But, as I said before, I do value your review work, for me it is always part of the puzzle of assessing how good certain lenses actually are.