12-16-2010, 11:06 AM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1292494993' post='5045']
The real problem with the star ratings is not the scaling, but that many out there take them for more than they are meant to be: a final and absolute verdict, not one of many parts of the review. It's not uncommon that we are attacked because of low star ratings, especially of fast lenses (recent example: Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 on FX), by people who haven't actually read the whole review. Or even any part of it.
[/quote]
I just compared the Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 with the Canon 85 1.2 II review, and here I can see the different ratings justified. The Canon is one third of a stop faster, and is still better at 1.2 than the Nikkor at 1.4, as it has about the same center resolution, but worse borders (but slightly better vignetting, but this is at f1.4...). Further, the Nikkor has more CA over the entire aperture range. I even agree with the 3.5 stars rating of the lowly EF 85 1.8 (which I have, BTW, so I might be a bit biased here... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />), as it has much better corners at its wide open setting than the 85 1.2 or 1.4 have at f2.0.
So, I agree that the star ratings are of course in part based on personal opinion of the tester and "gut feeling", and in case of the 85mms, our gut feelings match. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
BTW: Speaking about 85mm primes, is there a review of the new Sigma 85 1.4 on the horizon yet?
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1292494993' post='5045']
I'm sure there's nothing we can do about this group of our readers. Any detailed explanation we add to the star ratings will probably be ignored just like the rest of the text. Which is a little sad, since we try to stick to rather compact review texts (2 pages, 3 when sample images are provided), so there is not really that much text to read through.
In any case, though: we're only human, of course, and that means there will always be some subjectivity in the star ratings. Not just the star ratings, in fact in the whole review.
[/quote]
It seems that many people are lazy and want the ratings to be reduced to one or a few simple numbers so that they don't have to think at all about their purchases. This also explains why so many computer magazines produce numerical ratings, have some kind of "test winner" award for manufacturers to put on the case etc.
More serious magazines ("c't" comes to mind) only give individual ratings in different categories and leave it to the reader to make an informed choice based on which rating categories are most important to them. I clearly favor the later approach, but since your tests have all the important measurements published, it is no problem for the interested reader to create his own "internal star rating" for vignetting, resolution etc., so no loss here. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1292494993' post='5045']
P.S.: "Grummbeere" sounds local. Pälzer?
[/quote]
Exactly. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Though currently actually more like a "Pälzer in exile" living in a different Bundesland.
The real problem with the star ratings is not the scaling, but that many out there take them for more than they are meant to be: a final and absolute verdict, not one of many parts of the review. It's not uncommon that we are attacked because of low star ratings, especially of fast lenses (recent example: Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 on FX), by people who haven't actually read the whole review. Or even any part of it.
[/quote]
I just compared the Nikkor AF-D 85/1.4 with the Canon 85 1.2 II review, and here I can see the different ratings justified. The Canon is one third of a stop faster, and is still better at 1.2 than the Nikkor at 1.4, as it has about the same center resolution, but worse borders (but slightly better vignetting, but this is at f1.4...). Further, the Nikkor has more CA over the entire aperture range. I even agree with the 3.5 stars rating of the lowly EF 85 1.8 (which I have, BTW, so I might be a bit biased here... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />), as it has much better corners at its wide open setting than the 85 1.2 or 1.4 have at f2.0.So, I agree that the star ratings are of course in part based on personal opinion of the tester and "gut feeling", and in case of the 85mms, our gut feelings match. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />BTW: Speaking about 85mm primes, is there a review of the new Sigma 85 1.4 on the horizon yet?
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1292494993' post='5045']
I'm sure there's nothing we can do about this group of our readers. Any detailed explanation we add to the star ratings will probably be ignored just like the rest of the text. Which is a little sad, since we try to stick to rather compact review texts (2 pages, 3 when sample images are provided), so there is not really that much text to read through.
In any case, though: we're only human, of course, and that means there will always be some subjectivity in the star ratings. Not just the star ratings, in fact in the whole review.
[/quote]
It seems that many people are lazy and want the ratings to be reduced to one or a few simple numbers so that they don't have to think at all about their purchases. This also explains why so many computer magazines produce numerical ratings, have some kind of "test winner" award for manufacturers to put on the case etc.
More serious magazines ("c't" comes to mind) only give individual ratings in different categories and leave it to the reader to make an informed choice based on which rating categories are most important to them. I clearly favor the later approach, but since your tests have all the important measurements published, it is no problem for the interested reader to create his own "internal star rating" for vignetting, resolution etc., so no loss here. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> [quote name='mst' timestamp='1292494993' post='5045']
P.S.: "Grummbeere" sounds local. Pälzer?
[/quote]
Exactly. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Though currently actually more like a "Pälzer in exile" living in a different Bundesland.