Hey John, Apologies for winding you up. It was just a poor attempt at poking fun of the situation. IMHO, Fotozone is *relatively* thorough in their tests and less unreliable than many. A lack of mention of PF in tests of lenses from the Big Two is either because Fotozone just started testing for PF, or because they're biased. I can't think they could be particularly in disfavour of Pentax, though. Just more in favour of whoever has the higher market share, I guess. After all, owners of those brands would be the higher portion of their readers. And I also think the jury is still out as to their bias. Now that they've raised the issue of PF, it would do everyone good if they continued to discuss this property for all brands. Just one sentence remarking that they didn't find any would be infinitely more clarifying than no mention at all, as it is today.
I agree with you that PF is very real. I disagree with you in thinking that current lack of mention in tests of other than Pentax is proof that this is nonexistent with other brands. If, at the end of the day, some of your real keepers (for other reasons) show PF, then it's time to walk the walk through the post processing. With the DA*, you'll have an easier job than with the FA* 200. I'm not at all sure that your raw files would be better with a different brand of DSLR. Best, Jostein 2008/5/22 John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ...as for psychological considerations, there is also > the unbendable urge to consider any shortfalls of > Pentax equipment as unfair testing, biased > German/French/American/Tralfamadorian testers, bad > sample, or oh-poor-me Pentax doesn't never gets a fair > shake criticism. To demean pruple fringing as a > problem that only occurs for the poor photog who shoots > backlit twigs is to miss the point - purple fringing is > well known in digital sensor testing - check > Dpreview.com for many examples- so lack of mention for > Canon and Nikon would indicate, duh, a lack of that > problem on the lens/camera combos tested. > > I love Pentax, but long ago gave up the notion that > they have the "best lenses on planet urth." Whilst > Pentax has many fine lenses and cameras, it is sad that > they have a bad habit of falling short when there is no > need to fall short, i.e., newly designed expensive > cameras and lenses such as the K20 and DA* 200. > > But Pentax is not alone in lens shortfalls - consider > how many recent DA-type lenses of all manufacturers > (with reduced image circle) suffer from severe light > falloff in the corners. What's with that? They have a > smaller area to cover and can't make a design to cover > it without significant (1 stop +) falloff? > > > . > -- > John Mustarde > Paris, TX > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
