Sure. I understand that. It depends whether one is quantitatively measuring the results from an entire camera system, or essentially just the recording component of that system (i.e sensor and in-camera raw processing).
I readily admit that quantitative tests of the recording mechanism (i.e., tests/comparisons of raw output with no variation in lens) is meaningful. That measurement and analysis will translate across all lenses and has value. By the same token, tests/comparisons of camera systems as a whole, have meaning and value, as they enable real world comparisons to be made, as opposed to theoretical performance that may/may not be matched in real world, hand-on use. I think dpreview has simply chosen to highlight the latter, since they figure most viewers of their site live in the real world. ;-) Tom C. >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Amazon buys dpreview.com >Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:28:15 -0400 > >If they used a different film for each camera they tested back in the >old days, "The Leica with Tri-X was worse grain than the Contax with >Kodachrome II", you would have about what you have now. > >The norm for testing a 35mm camera was to use the manufactures best 50mm >lens, and Kodachome 25. That leveled the playing field. You can not have >a meaningful comparison if there are no basic similarities. The more >variables you can eliminate the more meaningful the test. > >However, since lens and recording media are the things being measured >you need to standardize one or the other. Since testing a digital camera >is more like testing film you need to standardize the lens to get a >meaningful result. It is like comparing Fujichrome and Kodachrome by >shooting the film in two entirely different systems. > >-graywolf > > >Tom C wrote: > > > > > I can just hear it back in the pre-internet film days. "They weren't >using > > the same roll of film in those tests". "What if the emulsion wasn't from >the > > same batch?". "How do we know the film was scanned properly?" "How do we > > know the printed photo on the magazine page is an accurate >representation of > > the original? > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
