Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tom, An observation/question and a short story...... I agree about the numbers thing, and how it leads to dissatisfaction, and sales. Let's say one has the lens with a rating or 3.5. The marginal utility, IMHO, of getting the 3.7 lens because one "just has to have it" is very, very low. I've been down this road and cost myself lots of money I really didn't have to spend. I have a very close friend. He is an EE who has spent his life doing audio. He has a well deserved national reputation. The first time people go to his house they are quite surprised to discover that he has an excellent sounding, but quite modest by audiophile standards, sound system. When you ask him about it he will tell you that he spent a modest sum to get himself 90% of the way there. The next step up would require spending another $10,000, and his plan is to sit in front of the speakers he has and enjoy drinking every drop of that ten grand! I never thought about it this way before, but maybe he's the Ted of audio! :-) Barney PS - I understand that there is such a thing as good and bad quality. But, I think that it is fair to say that one can get too taken with marginal differences. Tom Christiansen wrote: > > Folks, > > >I'd not give this testing nonsense an eye lash width of attention > >simply because these people are all bench testy touchy people who don't > >read the remarks of users on the streets like many here on the LEG or > >LUG, nor the many hundreds of others who take real time pictures with > >the lens used in both an amateur and professional capacity day to day. > > You know. This is the exact same situation as with audio equipment. If you > buy a decent stereo you can typically find all sorts of test data on it. > Total harmonic distortion (THD), frequency response, signal-to-noise (SNR) > ratio etc. But scientific tests rarely mentions the sound that actually > comes out of the stereo speakers. Does it sound good or bad. Some people > swear by the tube amplifiers, claiming that their sound is totally unique > and the best in the world. Way better than the sound of any solid-state > amplifier. But it is a well established fact that tube amps have rather bad > THD -- especially 2nd harmonic distortion. There are also people who swear > by LPs claiming that they sound *way* better than any CD, even though SNR > and dynamic range is vastly better for the CD. > > My point is: It is really, really easy to make people buy stuff because is > has "great numbers". Numbers are easy to (mis-)interpret. If the MTF(70%) > of lens A is higher than MTF(70%) of lens B, then lens A must be the best > one. But there are other parameters that can be measured from a lens. So in > order to make it easy for beginners (and pros who don't know better (no > offence intended!)), PhotoDoDo has made it real easy. They've combined all > the data into ONE magic number. > > But does this mean that if lens A has a PhotoDoDo grade of 3.5 and lens B > got grade 3.7, then you'll most definitely like the pictures taken with > lens B better?? > > I'll let the answer blow in the wind... > > Tom > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html