Yeah, if I read the MTF charts in the reviews and was puzzled by them.
Here's an explanation of their new methodology:
http://www.photodo.com/topic_143.html
I'm still sorting it out. They don't mention which RAW converter(s)
they use. Also, the statement, "It should be noted however, that
results are only relevant to the camera/sensor combination that the
test was carried out on!" is interesting as well. All the tests of
Oly lenses were done on an E500; is that the best choice? And "lp/mm"
is replaced by "cyl/pxl" which may account for the seemingly low
values on the graphs.
The Imatest site looks like it will require a bit of time and effort
to assimilate so that will have to wait for another day. :D
ScottGee1
On 7/24/06, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the alert. I only used it if I was interested in a really
> old lens. I looked at some of the newer reviews though and did not
> find them helpful. All the data on the MTF graph is about 3 and
> below. I looked at several long zooms and found that most were about
> 3 at the wide end, about 2 for a middle length and around 1 at the
> telephoto end. The subjective comments ranged from excellent optics
> to disappointing and I could not tell the difference from the MTF.
> Humph.
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|