[Pentax Bob]

How can you possibly rate the K-3 lower than the K-30, K-5, K-5II and K-5IIs and equal to the K-x????
By your own indepth review and just about everything I have read on the web, the K-3 is a significant upgrade in just about every area.

Pentax Bob

[Adam]

I'm seeing a 9.0, but there's only one review so the number doesn't mean much at the moment. The other cameras are rated too high due to various biases, but it's good that our users are/were happy with them when they owned them.

[normhead]

How can you possibly rate the K-3 lower than the K-30, K-5, K-5II and K-5IIs and equal to the K-x????
By your own indepth review and just about everything I have read on the web, the K-3 is a significant upgrade in just about every area.

Pentax Bob

There is just no room to move in the forum rating system. You want to write a review that gives some idea where the camera is weak and strong. Based on my initial reaction to the K-5, the K-5 was instant. The improvement K-5 to K-3 is not as instant, because the improvements are not really to the image quality…so I'd say, upon and shortly after release the K-5 reviews were very positive. I would expect the K-3 reviews to be more muted. It doesn't mean the K-3 isn't a much better camera in many important ways.. you just have to understand the context of the review process. WHen I came form my K-20D to a K-5, my K20D images in many cases became un-useable. The extra DR and ability to rescue shadow detail were immediately apparent. We bought a second one within a few months. There isn't the same kind of wow happening with the K-3. I want it for the faster burst and more crop room in wildlife images, but the wife is un-impressed. She's still quite happy with her K-5 and sees no reason to switch. I think if you asked her, she'd be quite happy with the K-5 being rated better than my K-3. It's still an amazing camera. I'm not saying in the end she won't think higher of it, but it isn't the huge increase in IQ the k-5 was on my computer monitor. With the K-3, you are appreciating things you won't see on your monitor. The wow factor is in handling the camera. So far, not the final images.

If one was to go back and re-rate all the cameras based on having worked with a K-3 you'd get different results. But that's not the way it's done.

[Na Horuk]

Again, the real value of the user reviews on this forum are the comments and sample photos. The numbers are merely a quick representation for people who are incapable of understanding complex sentences and making their own opinion. The numbers are flawed, as a numeric representation of a complex issue always is.

[normhead]

Again, the real value of the user reviews on this forum are the comments and sample photos. The numbers are merely a quick representation for people who are incapable of understanding complex sentences and making their own opinion. The numbers are flawed, as a numeric representation of a complex issue always is.

Others of us use the numbers as a quick guide to let us know if we might be interested in the lens, before we read and understand the complex sentences and make our own opinion. I find it offensive for anyone to assume that others who make use of the numbers are in some way.. "incapable of understanding complex sentences and making their own opinion". What gives you the right to make that judgement?

[Na Horuk]

What gives you the right to make that judgement?

Well you are right, I have used language that the OP might not deserve. Its just that recently I have read a couple posts about people complaining that these number ratings are unscientific and that they cannot be used to compare lenses/cameras accurately. While that criticism of the number aggregate is valid, it is based on a wrong notion that the system was meant to be somehow accurate. What i meant with my post was that this presupposition was flawed and that the person had misplaced expectations to begin with. It was wrong of me to equate that to a person's intelligence. And the way that you use the number system is basically how most people use it - as a quick indicator, not an accurate representation, not as a guarantee. That is perfectly correct and I don't think such users complain about the numbers.

Sorry to OP and anyone else if i offended you or insulted your intelligence. It was wrong of me. But still, the rating system in this type was never meant to allow accurate comparisons between lenses or cameras. It is my opinion that viewing it like that will definitely lead to misunderstandings and probably disappointment.

[Paul the Sunman]

We should not regard the numerical ratings given by forum members as objective measures of the absolute excellence of a camera or lens. Rather, they are measures of how happy the users are with the equipment. If most people are giving a 9 or 10, they are clearly very happy with it. In a sense, that is more important, as ultimately I want to know before purchasing a piece of equipment how happy I will be with it.

[normhead]

I also find, I want to read the review to see if the person writing it has a lot similar to myself. Shooting mostly landscape and wildlife, a lens that is highly rated by wedding and event shooters or street may not be to my liking. Initially, I was completely mystified by the rating system, but it's actually quite useful, and it's contributed to many happy decisions. To me it's one of the best features of the site. I do have a few rules, I won't look at a lens that's rated much under 9, I'll start looking for lenses rated 9.5 or higher by at least 7 or 8 viewers, and only go lower if I can't find something suitable, that's that highly rated. The lower the numbers, the more reviews I read before I try and male a decision. But to me, the information is incredibly valuable and one of the best features of the site.

For me it all starts with the numbers. There are just way too many lenses to read through all of what's been written about all of them. The other good place is, if you're interested in long lenses go to the 300+ thread. I try and check in every day or so. You see images from a variety of long lenses and what different shooters do with them. I have never seen a FA *250-600 image there though.. I guess those guys are just too busy having fun to post here.