Ha! You are quite right they won't send a random sample of 5. I
always worry that the QC/sample variability is an elephant standing in
the room. Way TOO many reports of dud Canyon 24-105 f4IS "L lenses and
even a cursory look into the Canyon 300 f4IS "L" results in one
concluding that many dogs leave the factory.
Of course a vocal tiny burned minority can make much noise these days.
Mike Hatem of course found some significant wider aperture
performance variability in the Z. 21 f2's, but none were dogs per se. I
suspect high quality pol's might be difficult to manufacture and some
measure of the index of dispersion in performance for a given brand
would be very useful.
We'll probably never see it. I'd bet the incidence a undeserved red
dot being applied is very small.
Mike
Well, see, there's a niche you can fill! Since all the filters were
loaned I'd bet the manufacturer's would be loathe to lend 5 at once so
their QC could be evaluated!
Chuck Norcutt
usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Quite interesting,
> Thanks for the link. Nice methodology but wished they tested five of
> each type to help assess
> manufacturing consistency.
> Mike
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|