[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305635008' post='8407']
The point is that we don't know the sample variations. We don't reach statistically relevant dimensions. As such it is not possible to withdraw a thumbs up just because of decentered samples. The Canon 24-70 or Zeiss 24-70 are also suckers in terms of QC. Does this mean that Canon and Sony lenses are bad in general ?
If QC was a number one priority we would all shoot Olympus Digital Zuiko ... (4/3, not MFT) ... IMHO.
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
Thanks for the reply. I hope my original posting made it clear that I completely appreciate the problem you are raising and that I did not ask you to reach statistical relevant dimensions. I wanted to highlight an unease I carry for some time, but have little idea how to resolve. Perhaps averaging all the "rejects" per brand for a year might carry some mileage, but I am not sure.
By the way my DSLR is Olympus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
J.
The point is that we don't know the sample variations. We don't reach statistically relevant dimensions. As such it is not possible to withdraw a thumbs up just because of decentered samples. The Canon 24-70 or Zeiss 24-70 are also suckers in terms of QC. Does this mean that Canon and Sony lenses are bad in general ?
If QC was a number one priority we would all shoot Olympus Digital Zuiko ... (4/3, not MFT) ... IMHO.
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
Thanks for the reply. I hope my original posting made it clear that I completely appreciate the problem you are raising and that I did not ask you to reach statistical relevant dimensions. I wanted to highlight an unease I carry for some time, but have little idea how to resolve. Perhaps averaging all the "rejects" per brand for a year might carry some mileage, but I am not sure.
By the way my DSLR is Olympus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />J.
enjoy