I will say straight up, I spend way too much time looking at other peoples reviews on subjects close to my heart and not enough forming my own opinions.

Guess what happens when I do form my own thoughts? I form an opinion that is relevant to me.

Camera and lens reviews are often flawed, and many reviewers will spell out their own limitations of process up front and in detail, but we still slog through their findings and accept them on face value.

Lets look at one of the most trusted camera reviewers, DPreview.

They use a well tested and industry relevant process when testing camera sensors, Adobe Photoshop.

I have recently been reminded that there are other choices out there. If you shoot M43 for example, then Adobe is no friend to their slightly higher noise. If you shoot Fuji, there have been years of documented issues with Adobe>Fuji Raw file processing. I have spent way too long poring over minute differences between A and B sensor, when a simple trial out of a new software suite has shifted things seismically for me.

Each brand of camera manufacturer has a “best case” software suite available and it is rarely Adobe as the number one above all, so by using this one (admittedly market leading) programme, people are being forced to accept a hierarchy that is not necessarily accurate.

Lens tests are another area of confusion.

Many of the better testers will show you wall chart resolution tests. Field curvature is present in most lenses, making a flat test prone to revealing flaws that are not always real world relevant. To make things worse, some manufacturers will correct this simply to satisfy testing regimes, not actual field results. Fuji made an 18mm that I really liked, but testers had a problem with it. The lens was really sharp across the (curved) frame, losing some edge sharpness after the camera artificially flattened the capture.

If I was photographing walls close up at F2 with a wide angle lens, then sure, that is relevant (as relevant as a review of my mental well being), but for most subjects the lens was designed for, there would never be an issue worthy of note.

Noise, CA and many other factors are stringently pulled apart, when the reality is a large print will rarely show these issues on paper. Maybe sitting too close to a high res screen will reveal all of the images dirty secrets, but why do that to it or your self?

Consistently the lenses I keep coming back to are the ones that are poor tests candidates*.

Why is that? It is because lab tests rarely show a lens and camera’s image making character. Liken it to a thorough medical examination, ignoring the subjects personality, poise and natural grace.

DXO for example rarely gives Canon good marks over Sony or any other camera sporting a Sony sensor (not to mention their inability to even measure Fuji). So how do they explain either brand’s market share and loyal following?

Images are never measured by the camera that takes them, only the viewers response to the end result.

My little secret and one I like to remind myself of regularly, is that my largest reproduced images have all been made on my least expensive lenses and are often technically flawed in some way!

*Olympus 17mm f1.8, Canon 28 f1.8, Olympus 75-300 and 40-150 kit.