11-13-2020, 09:09 AM
I definitely will. And it's also the reason why I'm currently rechecking the results. With C1, there occasionally seem to be noticeable differences between the manufacturer profiles for and the C1 profiles (one can choose in C1). I went for the C1 profile in the first analysis of the 16-80, because it's the default and there was no visible difference to the Fuji profile.
However, while doing analysis of some other XF and XC zooms (note to self: checking more than 30 lenses in parallel is not a healthy approach ) I noticed very visible differences between the two profiles with the XC 16-50. I am currently rechecking results for both zooms with both profiles, because I assume that either the C1 profile for the XC 16-50 is wrong or buggy or there is a bug in C1 when applying the C1 profile to images of that particular lens.
I know I'm really stretching your patience now, but I would prefer to make sure the results are not flawed before I publish the numbers. Publishing wrong numbers and then later having to admit the results would be a nightmare... lesson I learned from the first Nikon AF-D 18-35 review
However, while doing analysis of some other XF and XC zooms (note to self: checking more than 30 lenses in parallel is not a healthy approach ) I noticed very visible differences between the two profiles with the XC 16-50. I am currently rechecking results for both zooms with both profiles, because I assume that either the C1 profile for the XC 16-50 is wrong or buggy or there is a bug in C1 when applying the C1 profile to images of that particular lens.
I know I'm really stretching your patience now, but I would prefer to make sure the results are not flawed before I publish the numbers. Publishing wrong numbers and then later having to admit the results would be a nightmare... lesson I learned from the first Nikon AF-D 18-35 review
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com