Originally posted by excanonfd This is like the crap that was floating around here in PF...
I understand you disagree--obviously, without having ever used DxO, and likely without having an idea of what DxO actually does--with my personal decision, but could you please use softer words? You know, for a plus of civility?
On the other hand, I fail to get the logic of your statement: how is what I said
like the claims that "advances in the sensor technology of the K-5 made many of the legacy lenses obsolete"? I've used and still use many old lenses... I think the 50mm old lenses and many Taks are optically better than most modern zooms. Also, lots of old zooms (especially tele-) are in many ways superior to their modern counterparts. (BTW, I use an uncoated Takumar-F 70-200mm). I keep my old lenses, although DxO doesn't have modules for them.
My statement concerns strictly the possibility of factoring the advantages of the DxO in the
specific comparison between the kit lens and the 16-45mm. I actually said the 16-45mm was the superior lens of the two.