Another Review of the K-3 ;-)


MrB

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 09:04
johnriley wrote:

However, I agree that scoring systems are a bit dubious at best and useless at worst. That does not negate the value of a review though, it's something that's there in reviews because the audience demands it. Or at least a large proportion does, because people are looking for a "top trumps" reason to say their camera is better than mine, or maybe a quick summary to aid a slightly casual buying decision.

I agree with those comments, John, although even the latter can only be of any level of help if it is part of a comparative review of several similar items, rather than a review of only one.

Philip

cabstar

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 10:00
MrB wrote:
The K-3 will soon be the perfect camera, Smeggy. As its price falls, the value score will rise above 100%, taking the overall result up to 100%.

Philip

But the review scores never change as prices fall and this is one major problem with review scores.
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

K10D

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 11:12
Nothing wrong with the review. The % score issue is in general, a waste of time IMO.

Best regards

Smeggypants

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 12:33
MrB wrote:
The K-3 will soon be the perfect camera, Smeggy. As its price falls, the value score will rise above 100%, taking the overall result up to 100%.

Philip

This means the K-1 will get


Handling 123%
Performance 119%
Specification 143%
Value 133%
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 13:14
Smeggypants wrote:
MrB wrote:
The K-3 will soon be the perfect camera, Smeggy. As its price falls, the value score will rise above 100%, taking the overall result up to 100%.

Philip

This means the K-1 will get


Handling 123%
Performance 119%
Specification 143%
Value 133%

Well I don't see how a falling price can result in an increase in handling score, but I'm sure you've worked that one out scientifically.

The reason I used a percentage scoring system for this review is because that's what the magazine asked me for. What did I base it on? My impression of what a camera should handle like, what its performance could/should be like, what its specification could/should have included, and whether I thought it was value for money. If I was reviewing the K-5II now, I'd honestly give it 100% for value, because I think it's amazingly good value, and you get more for your money than you might expect.

At the time of the review, I thought the K-3 was overpriced, especially compared to the competition, and I think that's been a common opinion round here. Now it's dropped below 1,000 more people seem keen to buy.

Performance, well I thought it was fantastic, but with shortcomings. I didn't think the shortcomings overly affected the camera, it just knocked a few percentage points off. Yes, how to do quantify this? Impossible. How did I do this? By referring to previous reviews in the magazine and see how they rated other cameras, at least giving some continuity I think.

Specification - for this level of camera I think it's exceptionally well specified. A few areas could do with improving, but again, I thought percentage-wise, it's up there with the best, and again referring to other reviews, it deserved a high score.

So no, it's not science, but it fits with their current system. I would say the general comments and conclusion really tell you more about the camera than the rating.

Obviously I'm devastated that I've lost any credibility with you, but I'll have to live with it I suppose. Just get on with my life with that sickening, bottomless pit of despair forever over my shoulder. I'm off for a cry. I suppose I should let all the other reviewers and magazine/websites who've ever used a rating system that they're looked upon with contempt and derision too.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

McGregNi

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 16:29
Well I'm a long standing paying customer of many photo magazines, and an avid reader of percentage-scored reviews - and I agree 100% that these scores do ruin the credibility of much of the work. The scores are so ridiculously close in most cases, and I have found often do not tally with the overall tone and sentiment expressed in words. They force me to deliberately ignore the figures created and try and judge from the slightest tiny detail or nuance in the wording how the camera performed in reality, or more specifically, how it compared to others.

Daniel, I don't recall any reviewers names specifically, so its nothing personal, but you said that you created your percentage points to some extent by comparing the figures to those generated by past reviews of comparable models - that surely tests credibility? Unless you were only using your own personal past work as direct comparison - how could you have any instinct for what another reviewer had felt when generating a percentage figure in a past review?
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 18/02/2014 - 16:30

alfpics

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 17:18
Accepting that the whole percentage thing rating (which as Daniel has said was a request by the magazine) is fairly subjective, it has seemed that in the past the very occasional Pentax reviewed by OP has not come out very well (in percentage terms).

I suspect (but don't know for certain) that has been because reviews have been carried out by non-Pentax users who really haven't managed to get a feel for the camera in the short time they have had it. Its great that on this occasion a Pentax user has been asked to review coming from a position of understanding the way a Pentax works
Andy

McGregNi

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 17:47
Well, sure ... I'm not considering any particular review, I make general remarks about the whole scoring concept in relation to camera reviews ... unfortunately, taking an individual reviewers personal choices and depth of knowledge of a single brand as a plus for that brand actually calls into question credibility also - I think this thread started off with a comment hoping for 'finally' a positive review.

But surely in fact what is required is a wide working experience with a range of models, as well as some very specific comparable criteria where a more scientific approach can be made. Again, I'm sure Daniel meets this requirement, I'm not talking about him specifically. But I think magazines would be well advised to apply these requirements to their reviewers rather than percentage point scores.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 18/02/2014 - 17:48

mille19

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 19:26
Well, I was just happy to read a review by someone who has actually used a Pentax before, all too often I get the feeling reviewers don't like Pentax cameras just because it's not a Canikon.

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 20:00
McGregNi wrote:
Daniel... you said that you created your percentage points to some extent by comparing the figures to those generated by past reviews of comparable models - that surely tests credibility? Unless you were only using your own personal past work as direct comparison - how could you have any instinct for what another reviewer had felt when generating a percentage figure in a past review?

I could try to justify these percentages until I'm blue in the face, but I don't see much point to be honest, because I think they're as fundamentally flawed as most people do. However...

I handle an awful lot of cameras during my tuition sessions (I have around 300-350 customers a year), everything from the models like (from Canon for instance) the basic but capable EOS100D, to the anything-but-basic 1DX I spent 4 hours with on Friday. So when I see a review of a camera, chances are if I haven't already seen it in the flesh, I soon will. The Canon 70D is very nice, but I don't think it's as capable as the K-3, and, for example, build quality is nowhere near as nice. However it's cheaper. It scored 94% in a previous issue of OP (Andy Luck did that one, he does quite a few for them). I looked at this review, compared the respective marks, thought how I would mark it, thought about how that would compare to the K-3, and came up with a result. I looked at a couple of others too.

It was honestly the hardest part of the review to do.

Is it right? Is it accurate? You don't need to answer either of those.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

NeilP

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 20:35
Daniel Bridge wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:
The K-3 will soon be the perfect camera, Smeggy. As its price falls, the value score will rise above 100%, taking the overall result up to 100%.

Philip

This means the K-1 will get


Handling 123%
Performance 119%
Specification 143%
Value 133%

Well I don't see how a falling price can result in an increase in handling score, but I'm sure you've worked that one out scientifically.

The reason I used a percentage scoring system for this review is because that's what the magazine asked me for. What did I base it on? My impression of what a camera should handle like, what its performance could/should be like, what its specification could/should have included, and whether I thought it was value for money. If I was reviewing the K-5II now, I'd honestly give it 100% for value, because I think it's amazingly good value, and you get more for your money than you might expect.

At the time of the review, I thought the K-3 was overpriced, especially compared to the competition, and I think that's been a common opinion round here. Now it's dropped below 1,000 more people seem keen to buy.

Performance, well I thought it was fantastic, but with shortcomings. I didn't think the shortcomings overly affected the camera, it just knocked a few percentage points off. Yes, how to do quantify this? Impossible. How did I do this? By referring to previous reviews in the magazine and see how they rated other cameras, at least giving some continuity I think.

Specification - for this level of camera I think it's exceptionally well specified. A few areas could do with improving, but again, I thought percentage-wise, it's up there with the best, and again referring to other reviews, it deserved a high score.

So no, it's not science, but it fits with their current system. I would say the general comments and conclusion really tell you more about the camera than the rating.

Obviously I'm devastated that I've lost any credibility with you, but I'll have to live with it I suppose. Just get on with my life with that sickening, bottomless pit of despair forever over my shoulder. I'm off for a cry. I suppose I should let all the other reviewers and magazine/websites who've ever used a rating system that they're looked upon with contempt and derision too.

Dan

I think the biggest mistake you made was giving the K-3 a positive review and not marking it down to 50% for its poor High ISO performance
UK Wildlife blog ----- UK Wildlife Facebook page ----- UK wildlife Twitter

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 21:03
However it's viewed, I think I can be quite safe in the knowledge it's not as bad as this comparison from Photography Monthly some years ago.



Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

McGregNi

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 21:08
Daniel Bridge wrote:


I could try to justify these percentages until I'm blue in the face, but I don't see much point to be honest, because I think they're as fundamentally flawed as most people do....

Thats the key point - its not about any individuals experience and knowledge of a range of cameras ... that qualification should be a given for any 'credible' review. Its about the meaninglessness of percentages. you said earlier you would like to have given our K5II 100% for value ... well, then that is to imply that there would never be, in future or in the past, another camera offering better value. That is the ridiculousness of it.

What I would respect in clear, defined parameters for making direct comparisons of certain features between competing models - it may well mean thinking outside the box. Of course, in such a system Pentax will always come through strongly
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 18/02/2014 - 21:09

Smeggypants

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 21:37
McGregNi wrote:
Daniel Bridge wrote:


I could try to justify these percentages until I'm blue in the face, but I don't see much point to be honest, because I think they're as fundamentally flawed as most people do....

Thats the key point - its not about any individuals experience and knowledge of a range of cameras ... that qualification should be a given for any 'credible' review. Its about the meaninglessness of percentages. you said earlier you would like to have given our K5II 100% for value ... well, then that is to imply that there would never be, in future or in the past, another camera offering better value. That is the ridiculousness of it.

Indeed.


Quote:

What I would respect in clear, defined parameters for making direct comparisons of certain features between competing models - it may well mean thinking outside the box. Of course, in such a system Pentax will always come through strongly

This is one of the reasons I like Kai's videos from Digital Rev. They do, albeit in not a scientific way, do several comparisons between models from a take it out on the street point of view. One of the major failings of this forum in fact is the irrational phobia about discussion of other brands models in relation to Pentax gear. Although to be fair it has got 9.56% more relaxed of late

In fact apart from a daily look at DPReview to see what's new and the occasional wander to the USZ Pentax forum, FigitalRev videos are one of the only other regular photography sites I visit.

I certainly don't buy Photography magazines ( not since the mid 1980s anyway ). It's not the money, I don't even read them for free in the aisle of the newsagents. They seem full of articles on how to shoot the latest cliche, Center pullout review the 20 best lens caps, and of course the formulaic reviews with the percentages.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 18/02/2014 - 21:54
I would never have imagined people would get their knickers in such a twist over something like this.

Ah well, never mind.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.