11-23-2017, 11:04 AM
To my surprise, Capture One had a D850 in their list of supported cameras before I had the camera - and before it was available. But usually you're right, especially with exotic stuff. Or Fujifilm...
But no matter how many iterations you will go, the values on another system (body, lens, converter) will change again. Basically I would support the idea of no sharpening at all (what with noise reduction? Capture One uses a pretty strong on eby default) and I suspect, some companies are also fiddling with the RAW before they export it to an SD card.
About the ratings: If there's a transparent system for ratings, why not? In fact it is quicker than reading. At the same time I sometimes miss aspects which are important for me - but do not influence ratings. And when Klaus mentions to rate the Sigma even lower but went higher at the end because of the nice bokeh then I conclude: oh the ratings are more based on feeelings than on facts (which is normal, I'd say, as soon as one puts subjective points like handling or finish into the rating). Then the "state of the art" also appears to be an issue. Years ago, Klaus said, that lens would have been outstanding - so why not today? I'd like to read about the reasons.
I see it from a readers side: OL/PZ doesn't create comparisons between lenses (like "how good are the corners of this lens at this FL compared to another lens"). Reading through lens reviews and seeing some remarks about bad vignetting (don't care) bad flare behaviour (care more, but don't agree with Klaus' findings) leaves me a bit clueless. If lenscore rated the lens, they use one sensor for all, so the results of the lenses are comparable, even if the system has oter issues. Lensrentals MTF curves also allow comparisons - but MTF charts are not the only aspect.
Inner design of the lens is not an issue for ratings - and not important for most as long as it's working.
I don't care much about 1/2 or 1 stars difference. But I do care about 1 1/2 star diff beteeen a zoom getting 4, flaring like mad and a prime with 1 1/3 stop more speed and fully adjustable AF at 4 different distances - tis matters because sharp or not is more important than getting 10 lines more resolution in lab conditions. I don't want to create a big debate, but that lens is not worse at 14/2.8 than the 4 star Nikkor is. At least not (transfering stars into percent is ridiculous, I know) nearly 40% worse (4 stars 100%, 2.5 stars 62.5%).
Regular readers also know that you're testing only one lens. Measuring 10 and getting sample variations also doesn't help much to verifiy my own copy.
It all is about "the best lens for the cash" - and it's not static, so the idea of a static rating itself is highly questionable and in my eyes a systematic flaw. That's why I basically don't care. As already said, I do not mind how you rate my lens which I bought without waiting for anyone's verdict. Everything I ever bought has strong sides and weak ones, Use the first, avoid the latter. This was true decades ago and hasn't changed although many people think the best lens is the best in all aspects - as if Usain Bolt would be a quick swimmer and a fast bicycle driver....
But no matter how many iterations you will go, the values on another system (body, lens, converter) will change again. Basically I would support the idea of no sharpening at all (what with noise reduction? Capture One uses a pretty strong on eby default) and I suspect, some companies are also fiddling with the RAW before they export it to an SD card.
About the ratings: If there's a transparent system for ratings, why not? In fact it is quicker than reading. At the same time I sometimes miss aspects which are important for me - but do not influence ratings. And when Klaus mentions to rate the Sigma even lower but went higher at the end because of the nice bokeh then I conclude: oh the ratings are more based on feeelings than on facts (which is normal, I'd say, as soon as one puts subjective points like handling or finish into the rating). Then the "state of the art" also appears to be an issue. Years ago, Klaus said, that lens would have been outstanding - so why not today? I'd like to read about the reasons.
I see it from a readers side: OL/PZ doesn't create comparisons between lenses (like "how good are the corners of this lens at this FL compared to another lens"). Reading through lens reviews and seeing some remarks about bad vignetting (don't care) bad flare behaviour (care more, but don't agree with Klaus' findings) leaves me a bit clueless. If lenscore rated the lens, they use one sensor for all, so the results of the lenses are comparable, even if the system has oter issues. Lensrentals MTF curves also allow comparisons - but MTF charts are not the only aspect.
Inner design of the lens is not an issue for ratings - and not important for most as long as it's working.
I don't care much about 1/2 or 1 stars difference. But I do care about 1 1/2 star diff beteeen a zoom getting 4, flaring like mad and a prime with 1 1/3 stop more speed and fully adjustable AF at 4 different distances - tis matters because sharp or not is more important than getting 10 lines more resolution in lab conditions. I don't want to create a big debate, but that lens is not worse at 14/2.8 than the 4 star Nikkor is. At least not (transfering stars into percent is ridiculous, I know) nearly 40% worse (4 stars 100%, 2.5 stars 62.5%).
Regular readers also know that you're testing only one lens. Measuring 10 and getting sample variations also doesn't help much to verifiy my own copy.
It all is about "the best lens for the cash" - and it's not static, so the idea of a static rating itself is highly questionable and in my eyes a systematic flaw. That's why I basically don't care. As already said, I do not mind how you rate my lens which I bought without waiting for anyone's verdict. Everything I ever bought has strong sides and weak ones, Use the first, avoid the latter. This was true decades ago and hasn't changed although many people think the best lens is the best in all aspects - as if Usain Bolt would be a quick swimmer and a fast bicycle driver....