> > > Posted by Jay (Jay) on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 9:44 pm: > >> Too bad it's the same completely subjective evaluations based on his >> opinions of what he sees through his eyes rather than quantified > data from a > reliable test apparatus, despite the abundance of > scientific-sounding prose. To a > true scientist his "methodology" is > laughable, and his acceptance as an > authority incredulous--other > than by Leica, as he is a marketing dream: a > volunteer spokesperson.
So, Jay, is one to assume that you don't find any value in his evaluations?
Personally, I think a 'scientific' evaluation of an lens designed to take photographs of normal subjects that we encounter in our daily lives (as opposed to purely scientific or technical photographs) would be of little value. But, I would like to see more photos in Erwin's reviews. The best way to evaluate a lens is to see photographs made with it, no?
The idea of requiring purely scientific methods to perform and evaluation of an artistic tool is laughable (to steal your term). I mean, what is the purpose? Quantitative analysis will not provide profound insight into the ability of a tool to aid in the execution of an artistic endeavor. If we just want to know how many line-pairs a lens can resolve, well that would be of some limited interest, but I don't count line pairs in my pictures...
Cheers! - marc