[miro]

According to me lenstest in lenstip, dpreview and photozone are good.

If you have general mathematics and physics knowledge you can read and interpret their results.

I cannot judge remarks made by lenstip because I don’t know what is inside of Imatest softwate. In theory if you know the input signal you can analyze the signal beyond Nyquist frequency because you know where the aliases appears in frequency domain.

==============================



I’d like to share my photo experiance during the last years.

1. canon 400d + Tamron 17-50 – delivers biting sharp images. The RAW images accept only small sharpening

2. canon 400d + sigma 10-20 – corners at 10m are not sharp, but with small high pass sharpening technique I can bring all small details back.

3. canon 50d + tamron 17-50 – RAW pixel sharpens is not as (1) but with small amount of high pass sharpening the details of 15MP sensor are back again.

4. canon 50d + sigma 10-20 – same as (3) only requires double high pass sharpening techniques.





At the end of the days. I choose my lenses according to

1. Flare resistance

2. Price

3. AF performance and MF handling

4. Durability

5. Sharpness – however there are few lenses with good (1)(2)(3)(4) and bad (5)



It is good to mention that I always use tripod and bracketing for my landscape shoots.

I don’t care about about such fuzzy parameter - lens rendition. Good lens with (1)(2)(3)(4)and (5) can rander perfectly only with few seconds photoshop work?





What other think about it.

Miro



PS : It is winter time. Less photography outside and longer chat session :-)

[mst]

[quote name='Bjoern' timestamp='1291282988' post='4687']

How about you guys send each other an email or just a quick ring before it gets out of hand and move on?

[/quote]



That would have been the best way, of course.



Up to now, I have had the impression that the most popular sites, while living in a certain competition, at least handled each other with a fair amount of respect. That doesn't mean there haven't been some comments with what I'd call objective criticism in the past, coming from several directions (from here, too), but at least IMO never in a way that you'd call an "attack".



So, just like Klaus I'm a little surprised to read that article, too. I would certainly have chosen a different way to handle this, but to each his own. If you feel the need to attack the competition in the FAQ already, you might see this differently.



-- Markus

[Tiz]

@Klaus



"As far as publishing RAWs is concerned - we are generating multiple gigabytes of data per test. There's a natural limit to the bandwidth of our service ... our budget. :-)"



Is this really the sole reason why you do not want to publish ANY test shots (also taking into account that you make available for download numerous large jpeg images and, moreover, it would be possible to publish a link to the RAW files only in the forum (for the enthusiasts) -- there are so many free 1-click hosters)?



I believe that the big site, which does not allow links to your site, has recently improved by (i) creating a new test shot with fine details, shadows, highlights, low-contrast structures etc. and (ii) making available the RAW files for download. Such test shot goes beyond a mere b/w resolution chart and is quite helpful.



I feel that the testing of bodies and lenses has to become more subjective because the measured data alone does not suffice any longer. See, for instance, the DXO results for the Pentax K5 which are certainly influenced by pre-cooked RAW files.



I would like to see experienced reviewers to not only provide with me with standardized measurements but also with their personal comments. For instance, imaging resource always emphazises that you should not merely rely upon their imatest data.



Making subjective comments (and making available the RAW test shots) would be "dangerous" of course because it would make it easier to criticize the reviewer. But, in my opinion, the very best reviewers should not be afraid of that.

[mst]

[quote name='Tiz' timestamp='1291289216' post='4694']

I believe that the big site, which does not allow links to your site[/quote]



Really? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



[quote name='Tiz' timestamp='1291289216' post='4694']But, in my opinion, the very best reviewers should not be afraid of that.

[/quote]



We're certainly not afraid of subjective comments here and there.



But publishing the RAWs? Allow me to be a bit sarcastic: there are lot's of discussions out there already in almost any forum, started by readers having trouble to interpret our published charts ... the processed, interpreted and simplified data. Can you imagine what we'd have to face if we also published the raw data in addition?



It's not up to me to decide, but if it was, my answer would definitely be: no, thanks! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[Tiz]

"Really?"



Maybe you are not on the blacklist...yet <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Tiz]

Just one more comment:



Klaus indicates that you "don't apply any aggressive sharpening (I strongly opposed that approach in the recent K5 discussion) anyway. However, even if we did this would have an impact on the scale only but not on the qualitative validity of the results".



I am neverthelss sometimes puzzled how relevant the differences in resolution are. For instance, what does it tell me that the Panasonic 20mm pencake scores higher than the Pana 14-45 OIS mFT zoom lens? Will the difference be clearly visible in real world images? Is a difference of 100 big or small? Even if you decide not to post RAW images, a processed image of a good test motif would still be VERY helpful.

[mst]

[quote name='Tiz' timestamp='1291298863' post='4704']

Will the difference be clearly visible in real world images? Is a difference of 100 big or small?[/quote]



Small. You'd probably have a hard time to notice the difference in real world shots.



If that's what you're looking for in the reviews or charts, better stick to our scale rating. It's a 6 grade rating (the 6th grade being anything below the visible scale), a difference of 1 grade (or school mark, if you prefer so) should be visible.



[quote name='Tiz' timestamp='1291298863' post='4704']

Even if you decide not to post RAW images, a processed image of a good test motif would still be VERY helpful.

[/quote]



We'd love to. Please feel free to suggest an indoor subject that suits the tested focal range (roughly 8 to 500 mm) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Honestly: we discussed that internally already, a while ago. I'm afraid you'll have to continue to check out the sample shots instead.



-- Markus

[Tiz]

" We'd love to. Please feel free to suggest an indoor subject that suits the tested focal range (roughly 8 to 500 mm) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />"



Mmmhh...how do dpreview and imaging-resource do it? (They both have a relatively nice indoor subject.)

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1291288204' post='4692']

According to me lenstest in lenstip, dpreview and photozone are good.

[/quote]

I don't trust dpreview... also it just doesn't make sense to think that they can get many other things wrong but are able to do a decent lens test.



GTW