That's pretty much what I was getting at in my comments, "controlled conditions", not to evaluate overall quality but to provide a meaningful comparison of different variables such as you mention below. I just kept the subject limited to lenses. As I mentioned in my post to Rob, don't you think a test target with several different objects, IN ADDITION to the chart would tell more about the over- all nature of the gear being tested?
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests > > > the main value in shooting test charts is comparing > the differences in films/sensors/lenses/fstops, etc > not the absolute numbers. > > You have to be careful not to "taint" the tests > though with poor techniques like inconsistant > lighting, focus errors, unstable tripods, exposure > and development errors, etc. > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests > > > As I was reading this post I was printing off a copy > of the test chart on my new HP 7960 inkjet. > By the time I read the comments below I realised that > all the chart will tell me is how well the ist D and > my lenses take photos of test charts! > I really don't plan on becoming a test chart > photographer. > Some of my lenses such as the Super Tak 85/1.9 will > never see the test chart anyway. > Don't have to, I fell in love with that lens after > only 3 or 4 images. > I do see a use for the chart in evaluating relative > performance of zooms at different FL's, or perhaps > trying all the stops on a lens under controlled > conditions. > Add the fact that I find testing lenses rather fun. > > Other than that I tend to agree with William, the > test that counts is the real world images. > > I'm still glad that I printed the chart though, my > $179.00 printer made me get out an 8x loupe to see > the finest detail it could print. Now that's > impressive! If it's better than my eyeballs, it's > good enough for me. ;-) > > Don > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:09 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests > > > > > > > > Maybe it's because I spent so many years in the game, but I just > > don't care about this sort of thing any more. I just go out and take > > pictures and I don't go looking for trouble. > > If the film/ lens/ digital sensor/ whatever makes pictures that I > > find pleasing, then I am happy with the equipment. I can't be > > bothered with trying to squeeze the last possible drop of performance > > out of something. That's too much like work. > > If small format, be it digital or film, won't resolve enough for a > > situation, I pull out a larger camera. > > > > I just don't think the difference between doing it right, and going > > to extraordinary measures makes a whole lot of difference. > > William Robb >
