Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>So, here, you are joking or not joking ? So the journalists and their >test columns in the photo press are suspect because car dealers, you >think in Georgia, are crooked ? I do not get the logic... The point, to make it plain, is that there is advertising pressure. People here were claiming there isn't. That a reporter has to be crooked to cave. That's not true. It's a reality of the specialty trade publication industry. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with Pop Photo's tests. It couldn't. That would end up with Nikon and Canon charging the other is getting favor. So I doubt that Pop Photo REALLY biases their tests. It just seems like it. (What kind of emoticon displays irony?) I just don't believe them, because of experience with some of the lenses they test. And they don't test that many lenses, that I've seen, that I care about anyway. They tend to spend their efforts on low-end stuff. Have they ever compared 400 2.8s? I doubt it. As I have argued before, and Erwin will probably be capable of pointing out the flaws, I just don't believe their tests really test the lenses for whatever design goals Leica, or Nikon, Canon, Minolta, or whoever has for their particular lenses. Sharpness is not the only criterion, and I'm said umpteen times. That seems to be the emphasis of their tests. Erwin has given much more reasonable criterion for testing lenses. But what is the best lens test? Yours. Mine, Jo Blos. Not some magazine. You're right, I should have used a smiley face. I often feel I use them too much. Guess I forgot on that one. Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Cooperation can only be reached if we work together.