Reputable testers, (such as Modern Photography), did just that. Of course they seldom tested cameras beyond meter sensitivity and exposure accuracy). But lens comparisons were with identical emulsions and hand held meters, as well as bench testing using special testing tools.
Tom C wrote: >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Not true. Each manufacturer adds their own twist to the sensor >> configuration and supporting electronics. Like the K10D's weak >> antialiasing filter and 22bit ADC. The results, while roughly >> comparable, aren't identical even in RAW capture. >> > > I can just hear it back in the pre-internet film days. "They weren't using > the same roll of film in those tests". "What if the emulsion wasn't from the > same batch?". "How do we know the film was scanned properly?" "How do we > know the printed photo on the magazine page is an accurate representation of > the original? > > >> Don't test the camera on its default settings and then judge its >> performance without taking into account what those default settings >> are intended by the manufacturer to do, which is the usual point of >> departure from reality. >> > > Umm... most people would expect the default setting to provide the best > image most of the time. Not true obviously. However, reviews are a review > of the entire camera one's holding in their hands and for many many people, > they will not get past the default settings. > > >> Testing and interpreting the results is a very complex game to >> achieve useful, comprehensive and objective information with >> something as complex as a modern DSLR camera. >> >> Godfrey >> >> > > Yes it is. We all tend to split hairs here rather finely. Even the reviews > do to an extent. > > Tom C. > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
