Indeed: it's at best a grey area. And anyway, if the content is unique or interesting enough, the quality isn't a factor. Personally, I've always liked Roger Hicks' idea of "acceptable quality", but that definition varies from individual to individual, according to usage, and probably also varies with time; in short I simply don't think it's possible to define a quality threshold that's universally acceptable below which a camera is classed as no good and above which no improvement in quality is considered worthwhile, because that's just not how the world is - and anyway, far from levelling the playing field, it seems to me that it's simply a way of artificially minimising the disadvantages of 4/3 in camera tests, which at the end of the day is of no benefit to end users, is it? The choice of camera is always a compromise, and each individual needs to decide for themselves what weight to give to each aspect. Trying to hide one aspect to me seems pretty daft, TBH, and entirely unhelpful. Where do you go next - say that as all cameras are under 5 kg they're all of acceptable weight, so that's not an issue? Or that as all cameras can focus in under 10 seconds, AF speed isn't an issue? I know I've exagerated both of these examples, but my point is that on ALL such issues, people's requirements differ and it's really not the place of a review to impose standards of acceptability; they're for the individual to determine according to his/her own requirements.
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Miniaturised 4/3rds lenses.
Edit
Reply
Quote
