Originally posted by MJSfoto1956 I think DxO pisses people off because of this feature of their analysis -- they try very hard to avoid using "resolution" numbers precisely because of what you state. Instead, they add biases that they believe more closely aligns with how people see. Thus, fast lenses generally get higher DxOmark scores because noise is one of those things that detracts from perceived sharpness. (not that noise is bad per se, but when it comes to perceived sharpness is certainly is)
Michael
I try very hard never to shoot wider than f/5.6 with any lens on any camera so a lot of that wide aperture perceived resolution is wasted on me.
The biggest argument I have with DxOmark is their
Standard* that resolution itself (or sharpness, if one prefers) is the central metric that defines a good lens. If that must be the case then sharpness must, by definition, be the central metric that defines a good photograph, and the sharper the better. I disagree with that Standard altogether.
But in fairness to DxOmark's methodology, they can measure their metrics, can claim to measure them objectively (theycan't due to camera and sensor differences, but they can claim to) and so they can make a case for a scientific evaluation, ranking and sorting of lenses one to another - a kind of ordered meritocracy, if you will.
None of which explains anything about the special character of the DA15/4 Limited - the 'worst' lens in this little contrasting chart.
* Hierarchy:
Standard = Good - we all have to agree what is Good or what comes after can never be agreeable
Comparative = Better - rank accordingly and scientifically
Superlative = Best - in an Ordered Meritocracy, all other variables being equal, there should be no other rational selection.
That is why there is Price (and Marketing).