Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-06-2014, 01:43 PM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,971
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
This can also be a problem. What we currently have is an effective rating range from 7 to 10 with most lenses in the 8.5-9.5 range. And because user expectations, price and so on are mixed in, you can't really even be sure a better score mean the lens is really better.

And there no way to distinguis a $300 product with a rating of 9 than a $1000 product with the rating of 9. The worse is when it is the same product, just at different point it time. Does the 9 was more given from when it was worse $1000, meaning it must be very good? Or was the 9 more given when it was only $300, meaning it can be soso but still get a good score because there nothing better for $300 ?

Our system is not that perfect Even through the different sub score do help !
And the words really help. If the person was expecting a tiny camera with results comparable to a 645Z, then his ranking might be totally irrelevant to you.

12-06-2014, 02:52 PM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
And the words really help. If the person was expecting a tiny camera with results comparable to a 645Z, then his ranking might be totally irrelevant to you.
That's true So after all he didn't that mis reviewed it, even if it is anoying to see !
12-19-2014, 05:08 AM   #48
Senior Member
sapporodan's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 123
I have to say, the only reason this persons review is so noticeable is because so few people have bothered to add a review to the database.
If everyone added a review (And there's lots of you out there with Q's) this persons score would not make any difference.
12-19-2014, 05:59 AM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by sapporodan Quote
I have to say, the only reason this persons review is so noticeable is because so few people have bothered to add a review to the database.
If everyone added a review (And there's lots of you out there with Q's) this persons score would not make any difference.
This is common to most reviews. Reviews work well when many reviewed and so when the audience is really big. I don't know for Pentax forum but in Amazon their review rate is something like 1-2 reviews for 1000 buys...

Life is short, we have to make choices on how we spend our time. Not sure writing reviews is high priority for most.

While theses lot of users of Q, there might not be enough in Pentax forum with the typical review's rate to get enough !

12-26-2014, 11:08 AM - 1 Like   #50
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,971
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
I'm quoting Ricoh. Not my words.
But surely no-one would argue that it isn't the most compact MILC? (aside from the Lumix GM1 )
No Compact System camera is promoted as pocketable. It's a clear distinction.
Last Saturday my "used-like-new" Q7+02+06 arrived from Oregon.

Today my brand-new 01 arrived from Japan. With the 01 on it, the camera looks much smaller than it did with the 02 on it, and it is now comfortably in my jeans pocket as I type this. If it works as well with the 01 as it did with the 02, I will declare my Canon Elph to be "retired".
01-02-2015, 06:39 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Last Saturday my "used-like-new" Q7+02+06 arrived from Oregon.

Today my brand-new 01 arrived from Japan. With the 01 on it, the camera looks much smaller than it did with the 02 on it, and it is now comfortably in my jeans pocket as I type this. If it works as well with the 01 as it did with the 02, I will declare my Canon Elph to be "retired".
It will work better. The 01 is significantly better than the 02.
01-02-2015, 11:47 PM   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dallas / Yucatan
Posts: 996
I saw the original post when it went up and just sat on my hands for awhile. I wasn't sure of the site rules, etc, and wanted to understand more about this. Well, if it's OK, I'd like to weigh in a bit.

Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion and there's plenty of complaining and gritching to be found all around PF. And, generally speaking, it is all well-intentioned opinion exchanges and vigorous debate working toward a "truth" of one sort or another. But, it seems to me, when it comes to a Review, you assume a bit more responsibility than your comment made elsewhere in general threads.

A Review is an evaluation (or we'd wish it to be), not an off-hand opinion.

Yes, it would be nice if all kinds of lenses were available for all sorts of cameras. Me? I'd like (ok, love!) a shift lens for Pentax in the 16-18mm for under $1000. Yeah, I'm still laughing... The lack of availability of that lens to slap onto my K-30 is no reason to rate the K-30 a "1". That's just ..... ..... ..... .

Secondly on this point, when you buy a camera, you know what lenses are available for it, if you've looked into it at all. That is on you, not the camera or mfr. To be more clear, if you don't like the lenses available for the camera system, don't buy the camera system. Finally on this point, don't say a lens is not available when it is clearly available. Buying Pentax, most of us already know that every corner store does not stock every Pentax/Ricoh item, although we can always hope.

As far as "It's something stupid on the Internet, so just ignore it." Well, yeah, but PF isn't the whole Internet. It's a community of remarkable resources, opinions and knowledge which I greatly appreciate and respect. And, again, this isn't just an opinion in a general comment thread, someone went to the Review section and intentionally down-rated a camera due to their own personal pique rather than an actual appraisal -- either subjectively or as objectively as possible -- of the camera's capabilities and drawbacks.

Why do I feel it is something that cannot be "brushed off" readily? Because I haunt the lens ratings sections on a regular basis. What I would like to find there is a combined appraisal of various lenses, particularly more obscure ones. But I've found so many "ringer" opinions affecting the average rating, that you have to read and weed through the entire list. What those "ringers" do is slant the averages in the numbers ratings. You almost have to try to recalculate the numbers again in your head.

The "ringers" hurt the value of the rating system You cannot just "disregard" the ringer without reading through all the various remarks to find who the ringer is and why they've slammed a camera or lens. The fact that the number rating is blended with others insures it cannot be ignored. It's like a middle finger to everyone, or seems that way to me.

I've seen "reviews" which read along the lines of "I just bought this, so I'm rating it a "X" and I'll come back and update this review after using." (dated 2009 with no updates). That is just as bad a disrespect of the community as rating a camera a "1" because you're unable to understand size specs before buying.

I don't really agree that most lenses are in the 8.5 to 9.5 range either, nor that the numbers are meaningless due to price differences. If you study the lens ratings area, you'll quickly see a relationship between most ratings and price, especially for lenses of similar focal lengths at different prices.

When you see a "9" for a cheap off brand MF or old lens, yeah, it is true that doesn't mean the exactly same as a Star lens' "9" (most Star lenses are 9.75-10s anyway), but the goal is to rate overall performance (and subjectively, appreciation of the lens ends up being a part, I think, too). Most rational people understand that an uncoated 50 yo manual focus, manual aperture lens rated a "9" is not going to match the performance of an HD Limited Prime at 9.99. But among its peers, it sure stands out. And there are 6's and 7's in the Third Party ratings, too, for sure. Real stinkers have some poor numbers.

Anyway, I guess reading this entire thread through just inspired me to get this off my chest. Obvious "ringers" should somehow be "devalued" or marked as outliers to avoid wasting our time and distorting the overall number ratings. They could be left up if their numerical ratings (like an obviously absurd "1") were somehow removed from the overall average.

Maybe a "flagging" could prompt a Review review, just as a complaint or flag prompts a moderator review of a general comment. If members are warned for making inappropriate comments in the Buy/Sell section or being rude, name-calling or insulting in general comments, they certainly could be warned for posting spurious reviews. We should expect higher standards in our reviews, just as hard-working moderators expect higher standards of behavior than "the usual Internet chaos" within general threads.

There, now I'll sleep peacefully tonight. hehe
01-03-2015, 07:16 AM - 1 Like   #53
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by yucatanPentax Quote
I saw the original post when it went up and just sat on my hands for awhile. I wasn't sure of the site rules, etc, and wanted to understand more about this. Well, if it's OK, I'd like to weigh in a bit.
.....
Maybe a "flagging" could prompt a Review review, just as a complaint or flag prompts a moderator review of a general comment. If members are warned for making inappropriate comments in the Buy/Sell section or being rude, name-calling or insulting in general comments, they certainly could be warned for posting spurious reviews. We should expect higher standards in our reviews, just as hard-working moderators expect higher standards of behavior than "the usual Internet chaos" within general threads.

There, now I'll sleep peacefully tonight. hehe
I made a suggestion in the suggestion forum here related to this issue:
"I've just read a review of the 18-135 by someone and its their first post. The review indicates that the copy is known to be bad but rates it as a 5 anyway. Also, they indicated it was part of a kit and put $200 as the cost. Neither is actually representative of reality IMHO. In looking through a few other egregious reviews it seems to me that an unusual percentage of them are by people with 1 post. Can we set a minimum # of posts prior to writing a review"

To which Adam responded:
"Restricting reviews based on post count would undoubtedly open a can of worms. The lens review system will be overhauled in the near future, and there will be support for up-voting/down-voting reviews."

01-03-2015, 07:42 AM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,036
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
I made a suggestion in the suggestion forum here related to this issue:
"I've just read a review of the 18-135 by someone and its their first post. The review indicates that the copy is known to be bad but rates it as a 5 anyway. Also, they indicated it was part of a kit and put $200 as the cost. Neither is actually representative of reality IMHO. In looking through a few other egregious reviews it seems to me that an unusual percentage of them are by people with 1 post. Can we set a minimum # of posts prior to writing a review"

To which Adam responded:
"Restricting reviews based on post count would undoubtedly open a can of worms. The lens review system will be overhauled in the near future, and there will be support for up-voting/down-voting reviews."
I like the idea of voting reviews up or down and rating their usefulness. Particularly on a lens that has a multitude of reviews, it is sometimes hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Even if you have a hundred posts on the forum, it doesn't mean that you have any idea what constitutes good sharpness and contrast, or any of the other factors that make a lens standout. I know that I wrote lens reviews where I was basically comparing lenses to a kit lens and therefore, all of them looked great, but that doesn't mean they were.

Certainly not all lenses are a 10, but few modern lenses fall into the failing grade category either (below 6 or 7, depending on your grading scale). Putting a number on things isn't nearly as useful as a narrative description where you just say the things you like and the things that don't work about a given lens and hopefully include some photos.
01-03-2015, 08:45 AM   #55
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,971
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
To which Adam responded:
"Restricting reviews based on post count would undoubtedly open a can of worms. The lens review system will be overhauled in the near future, and there will be support for up-voting/down-voting reviews."
I was never sure what the purpose of last month's contest was. I'm sure we all noticed a number of posts in that thread which said something like "Please Santa" (and nothing more). If a person needed to have some number of posts before reviewing something, a certain number would be deterred from posting, but the remainder would just make the necessary number of posts as garbage - at best useless - which would clutter up this site and perhaps even show up on some Internet searches (an Internet search is what drew me in here a few months ago) and give people an incorrect view of Pentax.
01-03-2015, 06:42 PM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dallas / Yucatan
Posts: 996
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
I made a suggestion in the suggestion forum here related to this issue:
"I've just read a review of the 18-135 by someone and its their first post. The review indicates that the copy is known to be bad but rates it as a 5 anyway. Also, they indicated it was part of a kit and put $200 as the cost. Neither is actually representative of reality IMHO. In looking through a few other egregious reviews it seems to me that an unusual percentage of them are by people with 1 post. Can we set a minimum # of posts prior to writing a review"

To which Adam responded:
"Restricting reviews based on post count would undoubtedly open a can of worms. The lens review system will be overhauled in the near future, and there will be support for up-voting/down-voting reviews."
I think your suggestion was a good one and Adam's response works toward solving the problem, but the inclusion of bogus rating numbers in the average seems to remain an issue. Maybe the voting up and down on reviews can result in the bogus review(s)' numbers being stricken from the average at some point.

Even the first *ist D remains capable of making very nice images in the hands of someone who knows how to exploit its strengths and lighting conditions. So, to my feeble mind, any Pentax camera rating of "1" should be immediately suspect of being "not a serious review." Even Soviet lenses or the oldest uncoated lenses mountable to Pentax cameras (and several which aren't really mountable but some minor miracles have occurred ) are shown in the forums to produce some fine images.

Although significant subjectiveness enters into it, once a sufficient number of reviews are made, a decent estimation of the lens can be made from the raw numbers, without having to read all 76 (or whatever) reviews. The outliers are the problem, particularly the low-balls. And, maybe the other problem is the "unserious" reviews: "I received my new lens today and rate it an 8 across the board. I'll update one day soon." (never to arrive). It certainly must look nice on the dining table after the box is opened.

I've even seen some, I think, which state, "I wanted to be the first to review this lens." And that's the most substantial remark made. Good for a chuckle or two.
01-03-2015, 07:41 PM - 1 Like   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,971
QuoteOriginally posted by yucatanPentax Quote
I think your suggestion was a good one and Adam's response works toward solving the problem, but the inclusion of bogus rating numbers in the average seems to remain an issue. Maybe the voting up and down on reviews can result in the bogus review(s)' numbers being stricken from the average at some point.

Even the first *ist D remains capable of making very nice images in the hands of someone who knows how to exploit its strengths and lighting conditions. So, to my feeble mind, any Pentax camera rating of "1" should be immediately suspect of being "not a serious review." Even Soviet lenses or the oldest uncoated lenses mountable to Pentax cameras (and several which aren't really mountable but some minor miracles have occurred ) are shown in the forums to produce some fine images.

Although significant subjectiveness enters into it, once a sufficient number of reviews are made, a decent estimation of the lens can be made from the raw numbers, without having to read all 76 (or whatever) reviews. The outliers are the problem, particularly the low-balls. And, maybe the other problem is the "unserious" reviews: "I received my new lens today and rate it an 8 across the board. I'll update one day soon." (never to arrive). It certainly must look nice on the dining table after the box is opened.

I've even seen some, I think, which state, "I wanted to be the first to review this lens." And that's the most substantial remark made. Good for a chuckle or two.
One solution sometimes used is to drop the highest and lowest 10% (or similar percentage)
01-06-2015, 04:49 PM   #58
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 69
I think reviews should have a weight based simply on the number of reviews of the reviewer, counting only reviews with more than 120 words. That would give more credit to people who know more gear and are thus in a better position to give relative ratings. Could the system be gamed? Of course, every system can. Obviously, spam could always be reported.

And please, one negative review, even if stupid, can be more useful than an avalanche of bland compliments. It's not like the product being reviewed will lose some kind of contest because it got an unfair vote.

The complaint about the dearth of Q lenses is quite relevant. You don't expect the system to be launched with a lot of lenses, but you do expect it to grow. If Pentax were promising some more lenses of the serious kind for the future it would be different, but as it stands there is a legitimate concern or frustration. There is one - 1 - one - that is, zero plus one, or two minus one, there is, I was saying, one single serious prime lens in this system. That's not reassuring. Where's the 20mm f2.4 macro? And please do not compare a medium macro or a wider prime to some bizarre demand like a 10-300 f4 or a 2mm rectilinear.

---------- Post added 01-07-15 at 12:15 AM ----------

As a reference, the 'standard' lenses in most systems would be, in Q terms and taking both sensor sizes into account, something like
- 3.5, 5.5, 7, 10, 17, 20, 27 rectilinear primes, though hardly so many are necessary
- 7, 20 macro primes, tho not all systems have macros
- 2-4, 4-12, 12-56 zooms, tho a ultrawide zoom is not something folks insist on
Now, I'm the last to think that the Q system has to be like the others. For that, we have the others. And I'm not even enthusiastic about the trend to have a 'standard set' of lenses, and to have each one neatly complement the others, overlapping range is much more interesting. But it can hardly be denied that the current system is lacking. Not necessarily on the zoom front, and I think criticism of the the 02 is undeserved, but where is the system that became great on the strength of its zooms? Do you know who has wide ranging zooms? Compacts. And I don't see how the Q system is supposed to compete against compacts. I think whoever gets a Q gets it because it is not a compact. Because whoever wants a compact, well, gets a compact. Each one is free to have their reasons, but who here got a Q because they wanted something like a compact?
02-01-2015, 04:01 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Antonio Marques Quote
but who here got a Q because they wanted something like a compact?
I didn't got one, but that would be the reason. You want a compact because it is small/light you can get it everywhere... And it has significantly different focal/possibilities than your smartphone.

When you buy a compact, what lense you get is frozen. The Q is nice because it keep the compactness of a compact system... but allow to have great lenses suited to the job. But then yes it would need a wider range of lenses ultimately.
02-01-2015, 08:49 AM   #60
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,971
QuoteOriginally posted by Antonio Marques Quote
I don't see how the Q system is supposed to compete against compacts. I think whoever gets a Q gets it because it is not a compact. Because whoever wants a compact, well, gets a compact. Each one is free to have their reasons, but who here got a Q because they wanted something like a compact?
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I didn't got one, but that would be the reason. You want a compact because it is small/light you can get it everywhere... And it has significantly different focal/possibilities than your smartphone.
When you buy a compact, what lense you get is frozen. The Q is nice because it keep the compactness of a compact system... but allow to have great lenses suited to the job. But then yes it would need a wider range of lenses ultimately.
I did get one, and that was part of the reason.

I won't go through my whole spiel here, but if you look for my first posts here (including earlier in this thread), you will find me asking a lot of questions, and frankly receiving discouraging responses. As I have documented elsewhere, I have a list of seven roles I need cameras to fill, and for financial reason, I try to do that with just two cameras. I felt that the Q7 was uniquely equipped to fill two of them that an APS-C camera cannot do. I had seriously considered the Sony A6000, which is larger than a Q7, because the available pancake lens makes it clearly pocket-able; I eventually decided that if I bought an 01 lens, the Q7 would also be pocket-able; I did that, and once the 01 lens arrived on a slow boat from Japan, I have carried it to various events using the 01 lens, even including events at church when I knew that I would want the option of taking pictures.
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!
camera, care, change, content, digital camera, images, iso, kit, lens, lenses, macro, mirrorless, opinion, output, people, pm, pocket, pocketable, post, primes, q10, ratings, review, reviews, size, system, systems, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breaking Out the "Crappy" Lenses (Take a Swing At Me - I can Take It) OrangeKx Pentax Film SLR Discussion 19 11-08-2014 06:09 AM
Lets Figure Out Who Made Those "Department Store"" Lenses (Sears, JC Penney, etc) Sagitta Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 08-11-2014 10:50 AM
what happen if i shoot with the "back" of the film instead of the "front" ? aurele Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 20 07-03-2013 08:21 AM
The Times: K-x rated as "best for beginners" gazonk Pentax News and Rumors 16 11-04-2009 08:26 AM
The "real" values for the FA 77mm f/1.8 Ltd. Just out of curiosity. bc_the_path Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-02-2008 05:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:47 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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