R
Ronan
Guest
See previous responses which would have saved you typing."Numbers don't lie." Oh, really?
On my accountant's office wall: "Numbers don't lie, but they speak many languages, and can be made to say many things".
Anyone who says 'numbers don't lie' has never done any logic, or deeper maths, for sure. Numerical results—while perhaps internally consistent— depend on starting assumptions. The DxO results equilibrate quite different qualities (qualia in philosophy-speak)—the assumption is that these qualities can be arrayed and compared as if they are the same kind of things (which a moment's reflection will show that they are not).
Although seemingly less 'scientific', qualitative assessments are often much closer to real-world experience (and, from my perspective, big "R" reality is never wrong!).
The DxO tests are flawed, in this exact way. HTH, KL
Or i can just tell you, numbers don't lie, in this case (we aren't talking about something else, lets stay on topic), since DxO tests under controlled environment. Or else what would the point be? Unless you are saying they are deliberately doing this (see other response, creating drama).
BTW if you read another response, you would see that they were contacted and said it could be bad examples of lenses (which started another conversation).
DxOMark is still waiting on Zeiss to send them new examples.
:sleep006:
Yes, but theirs other websites for that. Even DxOMark warns people about it.Lens reviews need images. Measurements aren't enough!
AFAIK no one buys lenses base on a couple measurements only.