Thys wrote:
> > Also, Photodo doesn't seem to have bias towards IS or non-IS lenses,
> > while it is obvious that Canon earns money on non-IS to IS upgrades.
>
> Yes, I realize they are calculated, but sorry, I don't buy that they would
> fabricate graphs just to improve their sales.
Fabricate as in "falsify": perhaps not. But they *are* fabricated in the sense
that they're generated from the design specifications rather than by actual
testing.
> How many lenses did photodo test?
In fairness, they probably tested one--which is one more than Canon used to get
its MTF graphs. :-)
> In fact, can you describe their test procedure?
There is in fact a fairly lengthy description of Photodo's procedures on the web
site:
http://www.photodo.com/art/Reso8.shtml
http://www.photodo.com/art/Unde7.shtml
> (How scientifically accurate is it really?)
Pretty accurate, it would seem. Certainly no less accurate than Canon's
computer-generated results. Also, Photodo results seem generally consistent with
those obtained by Chasseur d'Images (and there's a description, with photos, of
CdI's testing procedure in the current issue).
:-)
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
