01-19-2012, 05:59 AM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1326911062' post='15015']
Except surely one; you cannot properly represent all circumstances in just a few images and I maintain that these 9 shots will never be able to tell you whether this camera/lens confiduration will be a desirable one in real life. Those who think so should read some of Roger Cialas excellent articles on lense/body combinations and the necessity of testing every lens woth your body to get the proper (no pun intended) picture. Maybe you can draw some conclusions from the first several shots that you see of a new camera with a new lens but not all and no general conclusions.[/quote]
Earlier, you questioned if one can draw conclusions from pre-production copies, and the answer is an unwavering yes.
But, if you now claim that may be due to sample variation, then I agree we shall wait and see. However, I won't hold my hopes high. Roger Cialas' other articles also state the fraction of defective samples is typically very small. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
And from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333489...allacies/2
"So how big is this variation in real life?That’s really the point of all this. The variation I’ve described is easy to detect using modern computerized optical analysis. And we’ve seen that the variation between a truly bad lens and the group of acceptable lenses is very large. But how big is the variation between the different acceptable copies?
The best answer I can give is probably that it might be detectable by pixel-peepers, but not working photographers, at least hardly ever."
Except surely one; you cannot properly represent all circumstances in just a few images and I maintain that these 9 shots will never be able to tell you whether this camera/lens confiduration will be a desirable one in real life. Those who think so should read some of Roger Cialas excellent articles on lense/body combinations and the necessity of testing every lens woth your body to get the proper (no pun intended) picture. Maybe you can draw some conclusions from the first several shots that you see of a new camera with a new lens but not all and no general conclusions.[/quote]
Earlier, you questioned if one can draw conclusions from pre-production copies, and the answer is an unwavering yes.
But, if you now claim that may be due to sample variation, then I agree we shall wait and see. However, I won't hold my hopes high. Roger Cialas' other articles also state the fraction of defective samples is typically very small. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />And from http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333489...allacies/2
"So how big is this variation in real life?That’s really the point of all this. The variation I’ve described is easy to detect using modern computerized optical analysis. And we’ve seen that the variation between a truly bad lens and the group of acceptable lenses is very large. But how big is the variation between the different acceptable copies?
The best answer I can give is probably that it might be detectable by pixel-peepers, but not working photographers, at least hardly ever."