What's most disturbing to me is that I expect that the QC on "L" lenses
is probably very good meaning that the identified "duds" are actually
within spec. The Z 21s probably are too.
Chuck Norcutt
usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Ha! You are quite right they won't send a random sample of 5. I
> always worry that the QC/sample variability is an elephant standing in
> the room. Way TOO many reports of dud Canyon 24-105 f4IS "L lenses and
> even a cursory look into the Canyon 300 f4IS "L" results in one
> concluding that many dogs leave the factory.
> Of course a vocal tiny burned minority can make much noise these days.
>
> Mike Hatem of course found some significant wider aperture
> performance variability in the Z. 21 f2's, but none were dogs per se. I
> suspect high quality pol's might be difficult to manufacture and some
> measure of the index of dispersion in performance for a given brand
> would be very useful.
> We'll probably never see it. I'd bet the incidence a undeserved red
> dot being applied is very small.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Well, see, there's a niche you can fill! Since all the filters were
> loaned I'd bet the manufacturer's would be loathe to lend 5 at once so
> their QC could be evaluated!
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> Quite interesting,
>> Thanks for the link. Nice methodology but wished they tested five of
>> each type to help assess
>> manufacturing consistency.
>> Mike
>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|