jonoslack
Active member
Thanks for the kind words about the Azeri Restaurant shot.
What I was trying to say, is
Will that camera allow me to take the photos I want?
If the answer is YES, then reviews and tests simply become interesting (or not, as the case may be). If you can't try out the camera then the tests may help you to answer that question (but they are never going to go all the way).
As for brick wall tests. I nearly always use our brick wall to check out new lenses to make sure that they're okay - it's quick and easy and it works.
The high ISO noise issue is rather different - Various tests have rather suggested that there is no difference significant between the M8 and the M9 (apart from the sensor size) . I don't take issue with those results, but in the 'real world' I'm finding that properly exposed ISO 2500 shots are often useable (when they weren't with the M8) I'm clearly not alone in this. It may actually be to do with a different colour response, different IR response etc. just looking at the noise levels may only be part of the equation.
So, testing is useful, but the very process of making the test 'meaningful', i.e. carefully controlling the variables and taking shots in test conditions, may actually be making them less useful, as most of us take our pictures in uncontrolled conditions, and those excluded variables may actually be important.
What I was trying to say, is
Will that camera allow me to take the photos I want?
If the answer is YES, then reviews and tests simply become interesting (or not, as the case may be). If you can't try out the camera then the tests may help you to answer that question (but they are never going to go all the way).
As for brick wall tests. I nearly always use our brick wall to check out new lenses to make sure that they're okay - it's quick and easy and it works.
The high ISO noise issue is rather different - Various tests have rather suggested that there is no difference significant between the M8 and the M9 (apart from the sensor size) . I don't take issue with those results, but in the 'real world' I'm finding that properly exposed ISO 2500 shots are often useable (when they weren't with the M8) I'm clearly not alone in this. It may actually be to do with a different colour response, different IR response etc. just looking at the noise levels may only be part of the equation.
So, testing is useful, but the very process of making the test 'meaningful', i.e. carefully controlling the variables and taking shots in test conditions, may actually be making them less useful, as most of us take our pictures in uncontrolled conditions, and those excluded variables may actually be important.