Not useless. All testing available right now to look at has its flaws, whether
it be
human innacuracy in focusing on a map, or whatever Norman Goldberg/Herman
Keppler
did.
Larry
"C.H.Ling" wrote:
> The list is useless because it only containing the photodo's
> "weighted" number not because it ignored the "technique and
> photographer", no lens test will include these items.
>
> Photodo's result was discussed here for a few times, MTF curve is
> useful if you know how to interpret them. But photodo's test has lots
> of deficiency, just try to name a few here:
>
> 1. Photodo only test the lens at infinity.
> 2. Seems they only focus once for checking the whole frame, high field
> curvature lens will have very low edges performance in the test but on
> the field it could be fine in most cases as most our objects are 3D
> not flat.
> 3. IMO, the poor weighting method only show how the lens perform with
> small prints.
> 4. MTF doesn't cover the lens color accuracy and saturation
> characteristic.
> 5. Only one sample is tested.
>
> To judge a lens performance is difficult, I'm sure there are lots of
> other points I have left. MTF is not everything not to mention
> Photodo.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> Alan wrote:
> >
> > ax 5)
> >
> > Of course this list is useless. Ignoring the fact that it only covers
> > infinity
> > (how many of your macro shots are at infinity???), it also ignores a large
> > number of other factors that impact image quality (ignoring technique and
> > photographer).
> >
> > Alan
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|