Micro Four Thirds Focal Reducer Shootout

Started Feb 20, 2014 | Discussions thread
dougjgreen1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,068
I'm not questioning your testing methodology.....

I'm questioning your methodology of deciding which specific units that you actually tested.   You never described how the test subjects were chosen, which is why I raised the issue.   Saying that no cherry-picking was done is not the same as explaining exactly how the test subject units were actually selected - something you still have not done.

brian wrote:

dougjgreen1 wrote:

How can we know that you tested equally representative samples of each of these items? Other than the Light Cannon, which is clearly an inferior product, the differences - especially between the Speed Booster and the Lens Turbo, are quite subtle and could easily be explained by sample variations.

How do we know you didn't test a cherry-picked sample of the Speed Booster? It's fairly common practice to use an internally screened sample of one's own product for benchmarking purposes.

Interpret my results however you wish. However, there was no cherry-picking going on. In fact, the m4/3 Metabones Speed Booster I have is on the high side of the flange angular runout tolerance of Metabones products.

My test methods aren't exactly complicated. If you have doubts there is certainly nothing stopping you from repeating my tests and publishing your own results.

 dougjgreen1's gear list:dougjgreen1's gear list
Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Nikon 1 V2 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-PL7 +17 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow