#dyxum

[yourwhimsicalgasbag]

Macro with a Contax Lens By rasta_parta_man

[potskii-blog]

Coal Stage View by Your Funny Uncle on Flickr.

[laurenzbaars]

Review the Reviewers: Dyxum Part 2

Continuing the discussion on Dyxum.  Lenses are rated again according to a numbering system, which may be useful, but only if it is interpreted correctly.  Firstly, the ratings are done democratically, that is, the ratings are an average of the marks given.  This means that the greater the number of votes, the more reliable the rating, the fewer votes, the less reliable.  Anaverage rating of 2 or 3 voters can easily be skewed by one voter incredibly over or under impressed.  Generally, fewer than 10 votes would not be reliable.  The other problem is that you have to look at all the individual scores (sharpness, build, etc), and the composite score is useless.  It is possible for a lens to score 2 out of 5 for sharpness and 4.5 out of 5 in the remaining categories scoring a decent 80% or 4/5 as a composite score.  It is easy to see that a lens scoring 2 out of 5, a score of 40% for sharpness is only suited as an overpriced paperweight, while a modest 4/5 or 80% is almost acceptable.