This may not belong on the MFD forum, but it's very related I think:
Having just gone through an exhaustive review and research process as I ponder adding the Leica S2, I'm struck by how powerful internet reviewers are, and just how difficult it is for mere mortals to separate fact from opinion, or at the very least from incomplete reviewing. I found it quite easy to get lost in the technical wilderness with no compass other than my own eye to guide me. Then you start questioning your eyes, and that is really disconcerting
More importantly I cannot seem to reconcile the differences in factual reporting from various sources ... or my own experiences, and those of respected photographers, verses many of these sources
How does this concern "our art"? Well, we do have to somewhat trust our tools to get it right technically so we can concentrate what energy we have on creating images. IMO, no matter who you are, if you lack trust in your gear, or have to constantly fiddle with it, it is a distraction ... it takes your eye off the creative ball.
It seems this has become an all consuming focus with photography as digital capture technically advances (along with reaching horrific price levels that increase expectations exponentially, price levels that all film users would have laughed at 10 years ago) . It all feels like it is sucking the fun out of it.
Just as an example: (I'm not specifically singling out Diglloyd as the experiences there mirror experiences elsewhere ... but it is a good example).
A few hours on that site, (initially to review his findings on the Leica S2), and I walked away with the sharp impression that most everything I own and use, or am considering owing and using is pure junk ... incapable of taking a decent image or to be trusted at all.
The S2 supposedly has incomparable optics better than any made by anyone ... which the camera cannot AF to save its live ... with horrendous OOF examples I cannot seem replicate with the S2 I am testing ... and in direct conflict with Mark Dubovoy's claim to "deadly accurate AF" from the S2 (???).
Hasselblad H lenses (including the HCD28 and 100/2.2 he tested) are incapable of resolving enough detail to warrant a H3D/50, let alone the H4D/60 I have on order. His comments on the use of Phocus software, with its crashing and slowness really confused me ... and he is using a computer easily twice as powerful as mine. BTW, I guess I'm really lucky ... I've never had Phocus lock up on me.
Everything associated with the M9 is a nightmare ... specifically with lenses I use: the 21/1.4 ASPH and the Noctilux 0.95 which Lloyd couldn't use without experiencing back-focus even with multiple samples of the 0/95 ... in direct conflict with my 0.95 experiences, and evidently those that Sean published. Not to mention all the excellent images published from this camera and those lenses. The comment that the lack of Live View on the M9 was a design flaw confused me. Is Live View even possible with a CCD sensor?
The Sony A900 is shown in comparison to the Canon 1DsMKIII ... specifically using the 135L and Zeiss 135/1.8 lens ... with Canon the default winner if my eyes are to be trusted evaluating his side-by-sides. Hmmmm?
From what I gather, I should have kept my Nikon D3X ... unfortunately, all the fast aperture AF lenses I'd want are trash and unworthy of the camera
Anyway, I wonder if MFD peeked at 33 or 39 meg ... and all the following so called "improvements" are a conspiracy by the manufacturers to separate us from more and more money. Other than a few rarified German view camera lenses used on pokey, fiddle-fussy rigs, would a mega resolving 80 meg Leaf back's prowess ever be realized by a real human being?