Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2012, 11:09 PM   #31
Pentaxian
tabl10s's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sacramento(formerly from B'Ham, England).
Posts: 1,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
And the folks that complain about the coatings on a 35+ year old lens.

Yeah, that too.

11-27-2012, 11:11 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,912
QuoteOriginally posted by littledrawe Quote
Same thing with the pricing. People try to cite the average prices in the reviews as the fair market value of the lens. When that average includes someone who found the lens at a pawnshop for $10.00 or talked a sweet little old lady out of her husbands photography collection for pennies on the dollar I don't think that should be included to indicate what the lens is worth.
This works in reverse as well.

"Well I paid $500 for this lens in 1997..."
11-27-2012, 11:15 PM   #33
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Stone G. Quote
I agree. in particular because the bias also seem to work the other way round - towards a general "love" relationship.
I would agree, the real issue is that every lens except a real piece of $#! is a 7. So the scale is somewhat compressed
QuoteQuote:

I find it a bit odd that so many lenses and other gear get a rating of 9 and even 10. Most of us are - hopefully - very happy with our newest acquisition, but to me an 8 would/should be a highly recommended item while inflation in ratings now unfortunately seems to make an 8-rating indicate something nearer to mediocre, which is a shame.

If "everything decent" gets a 9 or 10, how shall we then rate the really good stuff?

I have come to believe that we users should only be given the option to give the sub-ratings and leave it to the software to compute the overall rating.
Good point, or maybe a rating system for the ratings where as users we vote on the accuracy of the individual ratings
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Ok, now I agree something needs to be done. A new member, with precisely 1 post, has rated the K45-125 as a 2. Seriously? That lens is about as sharp as a zoom has a right to be. As for CA and such, its a 30+ year old lens with coatings from that era. Geez.
The fact that a lens is as good as it has a right to be does not make it a 10. Also consider many new users may have an expectation born in the digital era where it is either perfect or worthless. Look at the issues and discussions we have over noise. If you released an *istD today how would you rate it against a K5 for example. While many may even accept it was good for the time, they may not like the results in today's context of perceived perfection

Again this is not a defence of a poor rating, but you need to consider all sides. For me, all raters should start at 5. Ten add/subtract points for the ratio of quality above or below expectation, quality above /below price, ease of use etc. for example I have a super tak 85/1.9. Ad while it can produce great images you need to be really careful using it, and it is not user friendly how do you rate it, on the great images, or the difficulty crating a great image?
11-27-2012, 11:16 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,912
I actually almost didn't drop the cash on the FA28-90mm due to the reviews here. Once I started using it (and overlooked the pure plastic nature of the thing) I discovered it to be one of the most useful lenses in my kit. I have no idea if I lucked out with a decent copy or if other people are overly judgmental on something that feels like a toy, but I have no regrets buying the thing.

11-28-2012, 06:27 AM   #35
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I would agree, the real issue is that every lens except a real piece of $#! is a 7. So the scale is somewhat compressed
Good point, or maybe a rating system for the ratings where as users we vote on the accuracy of the individual ratings


The fact that a lens is as good as it has a right to be does not make it a 10. Also consider many new users may have an expectation born in the digital era where it is either perfect or worthless. Look at the issues and discussions we have over noise. If you released an *istD today how would you rate it against a K5 for example. While many may even accept it was good for the time, they may not like the results in today's context of perceived perfection

Again this is not a defence of a poor rating, but you need to consider all sides. For me, all raters should start at 5. Ten add/subtract points for the ratio of quality above or below expectation, quality above /below price, ease of use etc. for example I have a super tak 85/1.9. Ad while it can produce great images you need to be really careful using it, and it is not user friendly how do you rate it, on the great images, or the difficulty crating a great image?
Lowell,
Fine, never said it was a 10 in any absolute terms but it certainly isn't a "2". I try to consider all sides in looking at gear, but sometimes assertions are just wrong and unworthy of consideration.
11-28-2012, 07:08 AM   #36
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
Letting a new user do a review with their first post is the issue, not the score they gave.
Maybe have a limit where a new user needs to be a member for 6 months and have 100 posts before they are allows to do a review?

Phil
11-28-2012, 08:38 AM   #37
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Letting a new user do a review with their first post is the issue, not the score they gave.
Maybe have a limit where a new user needs to be a member for 6 months and have 100 posts before they are allows to do a review?

Phil
That would be elitism. The impressions of someone maybe new to Pentax are just as valuable as those of the old hacks.
11-28-2012, 09:17 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
That would be elitism. The impressions of someone maybe new to Pentax are just as valuable as those of the old hacks.
No, there is a value to having some basic knowledge of both the area (photography generally) and the specific line (Pentax). Someone that has never contributed does not necessarily have enough knowledge to offer any meaningful comments. It is possible but far less likely. Many of the 1-2 ratings in the database are really just 'I didn't like this lens." or 'Its an UWA but I can't use it to take sports shots of my kid in the middle of the field' type comments - worthless.

11-28-2012, 11:10 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Ecaterin's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 723
I like the histogram idea (saves me from reading every single review to screen the lame ones for myself :P).

Another idea is to let *readers* rate the views as 'most--->least helpful.' That lets people get a very quick sense of the lens, and there can even be an algorithm that demotes the least helpful reviews so that they are less weighted in the over all score for the lenses.

I'd love to see things like this implemented - I know they're a pita though :P But this is right up there with a screening function for the marketplace for me in increasing the practical usability of the forums (which isn't their main use, but sure is handy!). (Marketplace screening=filtering for 1) camera vs lens 2) lens focal lengths 3) zoom/prime 4)location 5) price)

Ah, we have such a great forum and yet we're so demanding!

.
11-28-2012, 12:11 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Sol Invictus's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 392
I like the idea someone mentioned a while back of rating lenses on an absolute scale with no price considerations. So if you are rating an FA-J lens (18-35mm for example), compare it to one of the top examples of that focal length (like the Tamron 17-55mm) in all aspects like build, sharpness, bokeh, CA, etc.

Ignore the price. When you paid $20.00 for a lens, it's good value, regardless of the actual merits of the glass.

This way we could avoid all the 8 and 9 that mediocre lenses keep getting.
11-28-2012, 12:21 PM   #41
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Sol Invictus Quote
I like the idea someone mentioned a while back of rating lenses on an absolute scale with no price considerations. So if you are rating an FA-J lens (18-35mm for example), compare it to one of the top examples of that focal length (like the Tamron 17-55mm) in all aspects like build, sharpness, bokeh, CA, etc.

Ignore the price. When you paid $20.00 for a lens, it's good value, regardless of the actual merits of the glass.

This way we could avoid all the 8 and 9 that mediocre lenses keep getting.
That's nice in theory but I think price is a big factor, just look at the 0 lens sales under MAP of a vast array of SDM and * lenses and the huge surge in sales this past weekend. We could add a "How much did price factor into your rating" rating to help identify how much of a factor price paid was for the rater.
11-29-2012, 06:52 AM   #42
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by littledrawe Quote
Same thing with the pricing. People try to cite the average prices in the reviews as the fair market value of the lens. When that average includes someone who found the lens at a pawnshop for $10.00 or talked a sweet little old lady out of her husbands photography collection for pennies on the dollar I don't think that should be included to indicate what the lens is worth.
Some of the reviews have been there for several years and the price is based on the time of purchase which may have been used or may have been new. Some of my lenses I had before digital or PF, for example the A 400/5.6.
11-29-2012, 07:12 AM   #43
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
That would be elitism. The impressions of someone maybe new to Pentax are just as valuable as those of the old hacks.
Not really elitism. It is no different than allowing a 2 post wonder purchase a site supporter membership for access to the market place. Do you want to lay down $850 for an FA 31 LTD on someone with 2 posts and no feedback?
11-29-2012, 11:51 AM   #44
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,007
I think that sometimes people will rate a lens lower because they expect it to do something that it wasn't designed for. I've seen more than enough remarks about f/4 - f/5.6 telephoto zooms being "bad in low light". No crap! People should know a little about what they are buying before they complain. I think that sometimes there is some wishful thinking involved with cheaper lenses, that maybe I can get by with this and save a few hundred and they are upset when it doesn't work out. I bought my DA 10-17 for a very good price in the Marketplace from an owner who hated it because of the distortion. It was cheaper than a 12-24 and he assumed he could easily de-fish it with software.
11-29-2012, 12:19 PM   #45
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
I think that sometimes people will rate a lens lower because they expect it to do something that it wasn't designed for. I've seen more than enough remarks about f/4 - f/5.6 telephoto zooms being "bad in low light". No crap! People should know a little about what they are buying before they complain. I think that sometimes there is some wishful thinking involved with cheaper lenses, that maybe I can get by with this and save a few hundred and they are upset when it doesn't work out. I bought my DA 10-17 for a very good price in the Marketplace from an owner who hated it because of the distortion. It was cheaper than a 12-24 and he assumed he could easily de-fish it with software.
I bet the 10-17 suffers from sever barrel distortion at the 10mm end!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da14, k-mount, lens, lens ratings, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The problem with lens ratings.. 21 ltd normhead Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 03-26-2012 07:25 PM
Error Different ratings in lens reviews Jonathan Mac Site Suggestions and Help 4 11-08-2011 09:58 PM
Suggestion lens review ratings - shadow text? duncsuss Site Suggestions and Help 7 07-13-2011 11:05 AM
skewed body design shuie Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 10-31-2008 03:32 AM
Consumer Reports - Lens Ratings?!? storm Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 06-10-2007 12:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:11 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top