Re: [Leica] Optical tests again.

["Bryan Willman" <bryanwi@seanet.com>]

<snip>

>It is the same as with highend audio apparatus. You need really demanding
>music recordings in order to show/hear the fine differences in the sounds
>from the speakers.
>
>Erwin


<snip>

And this raises a SUPER important point.

People have traditionally tried to pick the best audio
setup by doing A/B tests.  However, there are some real
problems with this that are instructive in photography.

First, while you sometimes cannot tell the difference
in an A/B comparison session, if you live with the units
for months, you find you like one way better.  This is 
at least partly about learning what to listen for, and partly
about adjusting to the gear.

Second, nothing ever sounds the same in your house
(well, in my house) as it does in the stereo store, except
for really bad gear that sounds bad everywhere.

Third, a very high end stereo makes some CDs (in particular)
sound worse.  By revealing noise in them.

What this has to do with photography:

First, just because a test doesn't tell you two lenses are
different, doesn't mean they aren't.   (And hence Erwin
is always working on his tests.)

Second, almost nobody takes pictures of res charts, MTF targets,
newspapers, or even eyelashes, as their real goal.
The classic issue here is flatness - so the field of focus isn't
totally flat?  So what, nothing I shoot is either.

On a different tack, I will soon try to measure effective
hand-holding speeds (using a test chart and a flower, I think)
Has anybody else tried this?  (A little past testing has shown
that class rules like 1/focal length don't actually apply to
a Leica....)

bmw