[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456"]http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456[/url]
Decent and dwarfish.
[quote name='Klaus' date='25 June 2010 - 07:38 AM' timestamp='1277447916' post='679']
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456"]http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/529-oly_m918_456[/url]
Decent and dwarfish.
[/quote]
Not sure I really get the rationale for your policy about final ratings for m4/3.
Presumably what you test is a system result: in other words it will be good for CA and distortion, but the price will be some corner resolution because of the interpolation. So if you give it a final rating on the basis of those distortion, ca and resolution figures, it'll be in some sense a fair comparison with other systems where the CA and distortion might be worse, but where the resolution won't be reduced.
[quote name='DavidBM' date='25 June 2010 - 09:30 AM' timestamp='1277451009' post='681']
Not sure I really get the rationale for your policy about final ratings for m4/3.
Presumably what you test is a system result: in other words it will be good for CA and distortion, but the price will be some corner resolution because of the interpolation. So if you give it a final rating on the basis of those distortion, ca and resolution figures, it'll be in some sense a fair comparison with other systems where the CA and distortion might be worse, but where the resolution won't be reduced.
[/quote]
Sorry, but the resolution figures are also affected albeit to a disadvantage of MFT.
[quote name='Klaus' date='25 June 2010 - 08:41 AM' timestamp='1277451671' post='682']
Sorry, but the resolution figures are also affected albeit to a disadvantage of MFT.
[/quote]
I understand that, Klaus. My thought was the comparison would be overall fair, because while MFT would get better ca and distortion figures, it would be "paid for" by worse resolution -- so in terms of an overall balance, you would be able to give an overall result based on the measured resolution, ca and distortion which wouldn't be unfair to either side, because while mft would gain from the ca and distortion correction, the other formats would gain from the uninterpolated native resolution, and your overall judgements would reflect the overall results that users could expect from the lenses.
[quote name='DavidBM' date='25 June 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1277473832' post='693']
I understand that, Klaus. My thought was the comparison would be overall fair, because while MFT would get better ca and distortion figures, it would be "paid for" by worse resolution -- so in terms of an overall balance, you would be able to give an overall result based on the measured resolution, ca and distortion which wouldn't be unfair to either side, because while mft would gain from the ca and distortion correction, the other formats would gain from the uninterpolated native resolution, and your overall judgements would reflect the overall results that users could expect from the lenses.
[/quote]
I think the only "fair" approach would be to provide 2 ratings - one for the "native (more or less)" performance and one of the system performance.
However, consequently the efforts would double and I think this is not worth it. Most users will never care about the native performance.
Maybe I should change the "stars" to apples, oranges, strawberries, bananas - one fruit for each system. ;-)
The big question would be - which system gets the "lemon" I suppose ? ;-))
