Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nathan, Thanks for your reply, but, I would like to point out that I am learned enough to know that a comparison test between a Ford Mustang and a BMW M3 the Mustang may go 0-60 faster than the M3 (but I doubt it) the M3 would most likey be the overall winner. To continue with this auto analogy; every Auto magazine in the world that does a road test or comparison test gives you a very detailed analysis of a car through the numbers (including reliability) so it is very easy to go through a number of road tets of the cars you may be considering purchasing and make your selection. So, you could say that this is "scientific" testing. And to the best of my knowledge every scientific endeavor from Anthropology to cancer to film emulsion to snow shovels to yacht design has some baseline numbers attached to it. And so, yes I have "invested" quite a bit of my time in the past year trying to get a grip on what Erwin is saying. And I have read everything Erwin has had to say on the LUG and the LHSA Viewfinder on the subject of lens design and its optical results and he is very adamant that his "scientific" testing is the superior method. So assuming that on a scale of 1 to 10 "extremely fine" is a 10 then where does "very fine" fit in? Is a "very good" a 4.5 or 6.3? I have been pondering these questions for some time now and so I wonder to myself "how does my Nikor 50mm 1.4 compare with my Summicron 50mm 2.0?" I am sure both lenses would get a "exteremely fine" rating but is the Summicron a 9.4 and the Nikor a 9.2 or vice versa? So, with all due respect to Erwin you are not going to find the answer on his website. Let me finish by saying that while my photo track record (pictures published) is excellent only because I have an excellent eye for composition, but, I am a real bozo when it comes to anything technical and that is why I am attracted to a baseline number. Steve Annapolis - ---------- >From: Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens Tests? >Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2000, 2:29 AM > >Steve, > >I think that you might want to consider investing a little effort in reading >Erwin's articles. He uses very specific language to describe rendition of detail >etc., such as "extremely fine" or "very fine." Yes, it is simpler to read a review >that simply ends with one numerical score but it does not tell you very much. To >follow your car analogy, if you read that one car does 0-60mph in 5 sec. and >another in 5.5 sec., does this mean that car 1 is "better" than car 2? Certainly >not; it simply says that it accelerates faster, but it does not tell you anything >about comfort, handling, vibration, engine noise and the many other attributes that >make a drive pleasurable or painful. At the end of the article the car magazine may >summarize its review with one score (or a number of stars, or something) but if you >really want to know what kind of car it is, you have to read the article. Same >thing with lens tests. > >Nathan > >Steve LeHuray wrote: > >> Hans, >> Thanks for the reply, but, I have already done all the stuff you recomend. >> Neither Erwin or Gandy assigns a number like was assigned to those lens on >> your post. Being a car guy I can understand a comparison test where for >> example the benchmark for performance is usually 0-60 and there is a number >> to relate to, (0-60 = 4.6 sec). Gandy's information is pretty much all >> heresay and MEGO (Mine Eyes Glaze Over) when I try to read ANYTHING Erwin >> writes. > >-- >Nathan Wajsman >Overijse, Belgium > >General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/ >Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/ >Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/ > >