|
Both online and in a variety of publications cameras and lenses are inspected and evaluated both individually and in comparison. Testing seems to vary between the simple usage and report and the detailed scientific laboratory testing. Anyone reading such tests, whatever they maybe, should expect to rely on such in making a purchase, and to be totally fair, they can.
However reviewers of cameras or lenses usually only get one camera or lens to evaluate therefore their approbation or condemnation is dependent on this one sample. Frankly most camera and lens manufacturers aim for consistency, (barring the odd rogue camera or lens or flashgun), and we should hope so too. The magazine article that I read suggested differently. Not that there can be a great variance, but there can be a variance nevertheless. Take the issue of colour reproduction – camera a sees blue as blue, camera b sees blue as purple, and these are both the same model of camera! One lens can focus at a measured speed of 10 milliseconds, the other in 12 milliseconds. Again this is the same model of lens. As for barrel or pincushion distortion, the same premise can be applied.
In the real world much of the scientific stuff doesn’t really matter plus we do really get what we pay for anyway. A more expensive camera and lens is going to be better than something cheaper. Usually! What I’m suggesting is that is very important to keep an open mind and check carefully with more than one or two reviews before spending hard earned dosh.
Sometimes as well, because of camera and lens snobbery, real bargains can be ignored just because they are cheap or not mainstream.
|