[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1306017030' post='8744']
Lol, the apparently the sheer irony of the situation just slipped past you <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I’m talking about the recent argument regarding Sony’s SLT focus tracking, where you were clinging to your own test results and opponent was disimissing them as funny - now look how things have reversed <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
The thing is that I have done at least some tests to back my claims up, while yours are backed by lots of hot air. Unfortunatelly “bullshit†and “nonsense†don’t have lots of weight as an argument, even if you repeat them a few times in a row.
Anyway – Bjoern – many thanks for that link to dpreview test (
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp), that’s exactly the thing I was going to do on Monday – print and shoot some different colour resolution charts. Now it just saved my time <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Specifically for Brightcolours: check that blue-and-red part of high resolution files – sigma’s 4.7 mp sensor easily outresolved D60’s 10 mp and that 100% proves what I was trying to get throught to you. From my side the case is closed, I don’t think any additional test could yield any more proof to that.
[/quote]
There is nothing ironic, just you misrepresenting things. If you are of the opinion that I made a mistake in conducting my AF tracking test trying to reproduce the described testing scenario as close as possible, and not to my advantage, then just voice your concerns regarding it in a grown up manner, and we can discuss that point. If you are of the opinion that my assessment of the crops from IR was faulty, then address that, and we can discuss that point.
If you on the other hand feel my test was representable enough to reach the conclusion I did, then don't bring it up here, because that is just a sign of you not being able to have a real debate.
I pointed to a very clear why what you proposed you were trying to test was a faulty test, because for the very simple reason that the image is not sharp in the first place, in fact not anywhere near it. That the white is... white. And the red is very dim in comparison. And that that means that we CAN NOT visually compare each, because then our eyes start to be the hurdle, not the CFA influence.
Both are very valid arguments, nothing ironic about it.
They were specifically about your proposed test, not any test, my objections.
' />