What I perceive here is that we have some fundamental disagreements in
how the numbers are derived and what they mean.
...or, at least, the simplest first step, is to post equivalent images from competing systems:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23368379
They types of images compared should, of course, represent a range of photographic situations: landscape, macro, portrait, studio, candid, sports, etc. After these "standard candle" images are presented, it makes sense to focus on additional imgaes that represent the strengths of the camera, and not its weaknesses, although both the strengths and weaknesses should be thoroughly discussed in any review.
Numbers are convenient, but representattive sample images are more, if not entirely, complete. One serious flaw with numbers, although I am most certainly not disounting their usefulness, is their misinterpretation by the uneducated. For example, let's say Camera A has a horizontal resolution of 2200 lpm whereas Camera B "only " has a horizontal resolution of 2100 lpm. Just how significant is this discrepency? Well, one sure way is to look at the images from both cameras. Thus, we've come full circle.
And it's not just resolution. Noise is another big issue these days. It's not merely a matter of which camera has more noise, but it's the quality of that noise -- random, patterned, blotchy, etc. Again, the images give a much more complete picture, if you'll excuse the pun, than do the numbers. Or, perhaps more accurately, much more information can be gained more easily through an image than through a table of numbers.
Another major reason to consider the image rather than the numbers is that the image presents all the different qualities into a single package for our brain to decipher. For example, we may have Camera A being better in P,Q, and R but the situation is reversed for X, Y, and Z. By examining the images, we can much more easily discern which
balance of characteristics is most important to us.
It's more than just that. Let's say, in the case of lenses, that Lens A is sharper everywhere than Lens B. However, Lens B is more even across the image than Lens A. Invariably, there will be those that prefer the image from Lens B due to this quality, even though by the numbers Lens A is the better lens. Of course, we can also make numbers for the standard deviation of the sharpness across the frame, but the only thing that completely describes a thing is the thing itself.
To that end, it is the image we seek to measure, so why not provide the image as a source of measurement rather than numbers and graphs?
Of course, different reviews would provide different images, and we can all bicker about which images were more telling than which, but at least we are now all bickering about photographs rather than number graphs.
I think that's a step in the right direction.
--
--joe
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
