I just don't always feel like I can talk about them. On the other hand, I do have my conclusions. It's hard to do all the work that has to go in to a formal review, and I've done it too many times for it to be exciting any more. Your proof has to be all that much more convincing, your procedures better armored against dispute.īut I'm also an old bull**. If what you think is contrary to what the crowd believes, you'd better be prepared for arguments. (Saying this, I'm aware of how perilously close I am to opening a can of worms.*) I know most of the websites where pictures are searchable by lens type, and I've spent happy but ultimately pointless hours sifting through pictures trying to detect what I want to know about lenses that I don't own and have never used.īut of course, I would never dream of making hard-and-fast statements as if they were fact from such suspect research, and still less of publishing such conclusions in a formal review.Īnd the ultimate "I'd never do that" is in cases where my own conclusions are diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom. There are even some things that you can tell about a lens by looking at pictures online. For example: I've tested so many lenses in my life, and I know the visual telltales of the various optical aberrations and properties so thoroughly, that sometimes I feel I can get a pretty good handle on how a lens behaves just by looking at other peoples' pictures taken with it. Very often, experienced writers of reviews can decide for themselves what's going on with a certain product far more easily than they can prove it to the satisfaction of others. To understand the reason why, I have to go back to a peculiar condition of reviewing. I have to say, seldom in my life as a writer about photography has an event occurred with the kind of serendipitous timing as Monday's announcement of DxO's new. Those are not lens artifacts up by the streetlight those are windshield artifacts.
0 kommentar(er)
