Hi!
SP> Reading tests more and more in more places, I found them to be just
SP> unreliable. For instance:
SP> - according to Folorfoto MZ-S has one of the slowest AF among current SLR
SP> bodies (just slightly faster than Dynax 404 and 505, and much slower than
SP> MZ-3 and N*** F65...), the same test in FotoMagazine, and MZ-S has one of
SP> the fastest AF (beting easily even F100, Dynax 7 and EOS3...)
SP> - in FotoMagazin test MZ-S has quite poor matrix metering, in ColorFoto it
SP> just got better - better than F100 or EOS-30 (which were far better in
SP> former magazine tests...)
SP> - standard zooms - according to ColorFoto FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 is far better
SP> than FA 28-70/4 and what's more than FA* 28-70/2.8!!!
SP> - long zooms - according to photodo, F 70-210/4-5.6 is undoubtly better
SP> (3.4) than FA* 80-200/2.8...
SP> ... and so on, and so on.
SP> I am just tired of this "mish-mash". The best way is to make tests yourself
SP> - if the lens or body proves to be better for you rather than for testmen
SP> than just get it and be happy!
It has occurred to me reading the above, that the published lens or
other equipment tests are much close to statistics than to anything
else. Statistics is good with very big number of samples. Now, if you
take ten or even twenty lenses of some kind and test them in some
manner, you get twenty different samples of statistics for that lens.
Given the number of variables involved, it literally means zilch -
something like: There is a company called Pentax that happens to
produce some zooms, one of which apparently in my hands used in such
an such manner gives such and such results. Very well, who really
cares? I mean, do you really shoot test subjects only? Even for M
Reichmann test - I doubt any of you would travel all the way to
Toronto in order to use your stuff on his (favorite) location.
See, I've bought this Soligor 70-222/3.5 C/D zoom. Some months later
I've been advised to shoot with this lens a newspaper attached to the
wall. So I've discovered that on wide end it has some kind of
distortion - the trees on the boundary of the frame are a little round
- I don't know the name of that distortion. It really means very
little, because I am yet to find a subject that would severely suffer
from such distortion. Again, this is my shooting, yours may be
different.
I see only one thing that can be useful for tests - you read about the
lens, you probably learn, you might get some conclusion if you happen
to trust the tester, or if your needs are similar to those of the
tester.
Otherwise, tests are just a good technical reading, no more. Sometimes
it may even give you a reason to chuckle ("FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 is far
better than FA* 28-70/2.8!!!"), which is definitely a good thing.
I totally agree with Sylwester here.
---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
