Canon Reliability
dredangler
I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable camera.
I have taken about 1000 shots with it before I got the err99 fault and the internal flash stopped working.
Took it to Colchester Camera Repair (Authorized Canon Repair Centre) they said it is a common fault and will cost �122
to repair and will take between 7 & 10 days to repair.
They called me today, 15 days later to say they had also found some corrosion on the main board (don't know why the
camera has never been cold or damp) which will cost me another �100.
Is this normal for a new Canon ? I think the repair is only guaranteed for 6 months so am I just throwing bad money
after bad.
I was considering buying the 500D, but the way I feel just now Canon will not be getting any more of my money.
michael adams
"dredangler" <news@-NOSPAM-dredwards.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o8e2351jmkaa2vcuc...@4ax.com...
> I used to own a Canon A1 that lasted for years and in the late 80's I bought and still own
a EOS 620.
>
> I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable
camera.
>
> I have taken about 1000 shots with it before I got the err99 fault and the internal flash
> stopped working.
> Took it to Colchester Camera Repair (Authorized Canon Repair Centre) they said it is a
> common fault and will cost �122 to repair and will take between 7 & 10 days to repair.
Assuming this was brand new sealed box stock.
Check out the Sale of Good Act
Which over-rides any guarentee the manufacturer may offer.
You should pay nothing.
You can demonstrate you've only taken around 1000 shots - by producing
the shutter count in the EXIF data. And while the EXIF data for previous
shots may be edited i.e forged the data for new shots can't. Without
rechipping the camera at least.
If the repair shop are willing to put it in writing that this is a common
fault - maybe for a fee - then this along with the fact you've only owned
the camera for 18 months entitles you to a free repair or replacement
from the original retailer. Your contract is with them, not the manufacturer.
If they refuse to play ball, then take them to the Small Claims Court. Armed
with the statement from the repairer and your receipt from 18 months ago its
hard to see how you could lose.
michael adams
dredangler
Kind regards,
Dave Edwards
dredangler
My understanding of the 'Sale of Goods Act' is that I must prove that the
product was inherently faulty at the time of sale.
It also says the trader could be liable to compensate for up to six years.
Is this only if I can prove it was faulty when purchased.
Thanks,
Dave Edwards
John McWilliams
I've had maybe a half dozen err99 messages over the last four years, and
if shutting off and removing and replacing the lens didn't do it, taking
out the battery for a minute or so did.
But it sounds like the repair folk have already had their way with the
camera?
--
John McWilliams
Please leave in just enough of the previous message so there's a context.
michael adams
> Hi again,
>
> My understanding of the 'Sale of Goods Act' is that I must prove that the
> product was inherently faulty at the time of sale.
My understanding is that a �400 camera that fails after 18 months after 1000
shutter actuations under normal use must have been faulty at the time of sale.
It shouldn't fail after so little use should it ?
If something which is designed to last for say 100,000 shutter actuations fails
after 1000 shutter actuations then it's always been faulty, right from the
time of manufacture. It's an inherent fault in the product.
It can't have been manufactured properly in the first place can it ?
But what do I know ? If you want to throw way another �100 then go ahead.
It's no skin off of my nose.
Usenet at its best.
michael adams
...
dredangler
>if shutting off and removing and replacing the lens didn't do it, taking
>out the battery for a minute or so did.
>
>But it sounds like the repair folk have already had their way with the
>camera?
I could do as you suggest and use an external flash but any time you tried
to use the internal one, it would go busy for a few seconds and the err99.
Bertram Paul
It gets better: see how money people got f&%$ed by Canon's 40D:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=30848460
When you know Canon, you will love Nikon ;-)
--
---
Bertram Paul
John Navas
in <QOqdnTFsM9XW0qzX...@novis.pt>:
>"dredangler" <news@-NOSPAM-dredwards.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:o8e2351jmkaa2vcuc...@4ax.com...
>> Is this normal for a new Canon ? I think the repair is only guaranteed for
>> 6 months so am I just throwing bad money
>> after bad.
>>
>> I was considering buying the 500D, but the way I feel just now Canon will
>> not be getting any more of my money.
>
>It gets better: see how money people got f&%$ed by Canon's 40D:
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=30848460
>
>When you know Canon, you will love Nikon ;-)
To say that Canon exhibits a callous disregard for its customers would
be an understatement. I was a Canon customer long ago, but no longer.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
dredangler
>It's no skin off of my nose.
offended you. I really appreciate your advise which I will probably follow.
I'm just trying to get it clear in my head so I know what I'm talking about.
David J Taylor
I thnk it's the opposite - the trader must prove that the product was
/not/ faulty at the time of sale. But if you've a year and half of use,
you would not be entitled to the full amount.
IANAL
David
michael adams
Maybe they could have put it better. You posted -
" It also says the trader could be liable to compensate for up to six years."
"Is this only if I can prove it was faulty when purchased."
The answer to your second question is obviously not. No.
If someone only complains after say two years of use, (say in the case of a washing
machine) then its safe to assume that the washing machine must have been working
fine up until that point. Otherwise they would have complained sooner.
The fact that there's a six year maximum limit means that stuff may work fine
for 70 months under normal use and then fail and still be found to be inherently
faulty from day one. The six year limit only applies to certain categories.
In your case, the low shutter count and matching external condition is equally
relevant because if Currys got the idea you'd really hammered it - 200 shots a
day isn't impossible which over a year and a half would come to 109,000 actuations
then you wouldn't have a hope.
And with the state Currys are in right now, I'd get in quick.
michael adams
...
dredangler
Cheers. Will call them tomorrow to see when I can pick it up, I told them just to
fix the flash for now and leave the board, so hopefully it will be done.
dredangler
>/not/ faulty at the time of sale. But if you've a year and half of use,
>you would not be entitled to the full amount.
>
for the flash but I wasn't paying more for the board with only a 6 month cover.
To be honest I didn't know if it was the repair centre trying to get a bit more out of me.
cheers, Dave E
clw
dredangler <news@-NOSPAM-dredwards.co.uk> wrote:
> To be honest I didn't know if it was the repair centre trying to get a bit
> more out of me.
Things *are* tough all over.
rwalker
I bought a brand new D450 five years ago and have taken tens of
thousands of shots. I'd say you got a lemon.
Ray Fischer
>I used to own a Canon A1 that lasted for years and in the late 80's I bought and still own a EOS 620.
>
>I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable camera.
I have a Canon Digital Rebel that I bought about five years ago. It's
taken thousands of picture and still works fine.
Anecdotal evidence is crap. Statistics count.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Navas
<4a31aef0$0$1633$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Experience of others is crap. Personal experience counts.
John McWilliams
Of course that'll inform the decisions of most. If you have no personal
experience with the subject at hand, anecdotal experience of a handful
of usenetters is worth........what you pay for it. OtOH, statistics here
are as scarce as is forebearance.
--
john mcwilliams
Ray Fischer
>On 12 Jun 2009 01:27:12 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>I used to own a Canon A1 that lasted for years and in the late 80's I bought and still own a EOS 620.
>>>
>>>I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable camera.
>>
>>I have a Canon Digital Rebel that I bought about five years ago. It's
>>taken thousands of picture and still works fine.
>>
>>Anecdotal evidence is crap. Statistics count.
>
>Experience of others is crap. Personal experience counts.
If you're deciding what camera to buy then you don't have personal
experience and statistics are what count.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Navas
<4a31e513$0$1630$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
You have experience with the manufacturer if you've bought from that
manufacturer before, which is common, and why branding is such a big
factor in the market.
Ray Fischer
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>>dredangler <news@-NOSPAM-dredwards.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>I used to own a Canon A1 that lasted for years and in the late 80's I bought and still own a EOS 620.
>>>>>
>>>>>I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable camera.
>>>>
>>>>I have a Canon Digital Rebel that I bought about five years ago. It's
>>>>taken thousands of picture and still works fine.
>>>>
>>>>Anecdotal evidence is crap. Statistics count.
>>>
>>>Experience of others is crap. Personal experience counts.
>>
>>If you're deciding what camera to buy then you don't have personal
>>experience and statistics are what count.
>
>You have experience with the manufacturer if you've bought from that
>manufacturer before,
Do you know what you call people who rely upon a sample size of one or
two to make judgements about millions of items?
Suckers.
> which is common, and why branding is such a big
>factor in the market.
That's how lotteries sell so many tickets. People ignore the
statistics and rely upon sampling only the winners.
Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
I guess it depends on your approach:
- take it to a repair centre and say you want it fixed
- take it back to the original vendor and say it must have been faulty to
only last this long.
But as "clw" said, things are tough today!
Cheers,
David
bugbear
> "dredangler" <news@-NOSPAM-dredwards.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:o8e2351jmkaa2vcuc...@4ax.com...
>> I used to own a Canon A1 that lasted for years and in the late 80's I bought and still own
> a EOS 620.
>> I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable
> camera.
>> I have taken about 1000 shots with it before I got the err99 fault and the internal flash
>> stopped working.
>> Took it to Colchester Camera Repair (Authorized Canon Repair Centre) they said it is a
>> common fault and will cost �122 to repair and will take between 7 & 10 days to repair.
>
>
> Assuming this was brand new sealed box stock.
>
> Check out the Sale of Good Act
yes - the Guardian has been running some articles on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/may/23/tesco-consumer-guarantee
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jun/05/consumer-rights-returned-goods
BugBear
Stephen Henning
> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
The most reliable SLR cameras are Fuji with 3% serious problems.
The least reliable SLR cameras are Nikon with 7% serious problems.
Olympus, Canon and Sony SLRs are in the middle with 4-5% serious
problems.
Some people will say this is crap, they have a modern Nikon SLR and
haven't had any problems. Remember, with a 7% problems rate, you would
need to have 15 before you would expect one to be bad, so anecdotal
evidence doesn't apply with these numbers.
With Point & Shoot cameras the statistics are slightly different:
Panasonic is the most reliable P&S with 3& serious problems.
Casio is the least reliable P&S with 7% serious problems.
Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Kodak, Canon, HP and Pentax are among the average
P&S with 4-5% serious problems.
Vivitar, Samsung and Nikon are among the low reliability P&S with 6%
serious problems.
Data: July 2009 Consumer Reports
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
nospam
Stephen Henning <pig...@aol.com> wrote:
> The most reliable SLR cameras are Fuji with 3% serious problems.
fuji no longer makes dslrs
> The least reliable SLR cameras are Nikon with 7% serious problems.
sigma is the worst
> Olympus, Canon and Sony SLRs are in the middle with 4-5% serious
> problems.
>
> Some people will say this is crap, they have a modern Nikon SLR and
> haven't had any problems. Remember, with a 7% problems rate, you would
> need to have 15 before you would expect one to be bad, so anecdotal
> evidence doesn't apply with these numbers.
it is crap. what is a 'serious problem' and how was it determined?
here's a real world experience:
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml>
out of 77 photographers, 8 canon dslrs, 2 canon g9s, 1 hasselblad and
zero nikon cameras (1 nikon lens, however) failed.
> With Point & Shoot cameras the statistics are slightly different:
>
> Panasonic is the most reliable P&S with 3& serious problems.
>
> Casio is the least reliable P&S with 7% serious problems.
>
> Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Kodak, Canon, HP and Pentax are among the average
> P&S with 4-5% serious problems.
>
> Vivitar, Samsung and Nikon are among the low reliability P&S with 6%
> serious problems.
vivitar doesn't make cameras, they stamp their name on something
someone else made.
> Data: July 2009 Consumer Reports
based on users reporting, no doubt, which is bogus.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <pighash-7F5327...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>Stephen Henning <pig...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Some people will say this is crap, they have a modern Nikon SLR and
>> haven't had any problems. Remember, with a 7% problems rate, you would
>> need to have 15 before you would expect one to be bad, so anecdotal
>> evidence doesn't apply with these numbers.
>
>it is crap. what is a 'serious problem' and how was it determined?
>
>here's a real world experience:
>
><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml>
>
>out of 77 photographers, 8 canon dslrs, 2 canon g9s, 1 hasselblad and
>zero nikon cameras (1 nikon lens, however) failed.
The results from a 2007 expedition were almost the same,
which makes it appear to be a relatively good indicator.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml
However, it is worth noting that it does relate
specifically to one type of activity, which is using
equipment in extremely damp whether (and do not mistake
"Antarctica" for meaning "cold", because it was not).
Obviously a studio photographer need not give an ounce
of credence to such data, while a wildlife or sports
photographer should examine it carefully.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> However, it is worth noting that it does relate
> specifically to one type of activity, which is using
> equipment in extremely damp whether (and do not mistake
> "Antarctica" for meaning "cold", because it was not).
true.
as i understand it, consumer reports reliability ratings are based on
subscribers sending in surveys. people with problems are more likely
to respond, skewing the numbers higher.
George Kerby
On 6/11/09 1:51 PM, in article kdk235522r9so0jn0...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Now your using a P.O.S. you call a camera?
John McWilliams
Consumer Reports and others would agree that that is so, or at least
likely.
However, unless you have info to the contrary, the reported failure or
problem rate should not vary significantly from reality between/among
brands on a large sample.
--
john mcwilliams
Bertram Paul
news:87d499e...@apaflo.com...
I think a wise man would understand such things/problems fall under
"reliability".
--
---
Bertram Paul
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<VcnYl.41272$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
- contact the manufacturer, most effectively by sending a nice request
to senior management
John Navas
<4a31fe6e$0$1629$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>You have experience with the manufacturer if you've bought from that
>>manufacturer before,
>
>Do you know what you call people who rely upon a sample size of one or
>two to make judgements about millions of items?
>
>Suckers.
How nice.
My own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
statistically valid, and I also use the experience of many others.
Regardless, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
>> which is common, and why branding is such a big
>>factor in the market.
>
>That's how lotteries sell so many tickets. People ignore the
>statistics and rely upon sampling only the winners.
For some people, certainly, but many people gamble for the
entertainment, which has a cost just like any other form of commercial
entertainment.
>Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
I have experience, not bias.
John Navas
wrote in <pighash-7F5327...@news.isp.giganews.com>:
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>
>The most reliable SLR cameras are Fuji with 3% serious problems.
>
>The least reliable SLR cameras are Nikon with 7% serious problems.
>
>Olympus, Canon and Sony SLRs are in the middle with 4-5% serious
>problems.
>
>Some people will say this is crap, they have a modern Nikon SLR and
>haven't had any problems.
There's much more to this than these "statistics", which are relatively
small differences. Also important are factors like how well the
manufacturer backs and supports the product, how durable the product is,
how easy it is to service, cost of typical servicing, etc.
>Remember, with a 7% problems rate, you would
>need to have 15 before you would expect one to be bad, so anecdotal
>evidence doesn't apply with these numbers.
That's not how these statistics work.
I'm guessing you're thinking MTBF?
>Data: July 2009 Consumer Reports
CR (CU) has its place, but it's reliability methodology is not
statistically valid.
John Navas
in <120620090949370640%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Worse, it's a self-selected sample from a non-representative universe
(CR subscribers).
John Navas
wrote in <h0tq9k$ff5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
You can't make that assumption unless you can show the sample to be
representative of the universe, which it clearly isn't.
Gary Edstrom
<news@-NOSPAM-dredwards.co.uk> wrote:
>I used to own a Canon A1 that lasted for years and in the late 80's I bought and still own a EOS 620.
>
>I plunged for a Canon DSLR (400D) 18 months ago thinking I would be getting a reliable camera.
>
>I have taken about 1000 shots with it before I got the err99 fault and the internal flash stopped working.
>Took it to Colchester Camera Repair (Authorized Canon Repair Centre) they said it is a common fault and will cost �122
>to repair and will take between 7 & 10 days to repair.
>They called me today, 15 days later to say they had also found some corrosion on the main board (don't know why the
>camera has never been cold or damp) which will cost me another �100.
>
>Is this normal for a new Canon ? I think the repair is only guaranteed for 6 months so am I just throwing bad money
>after bad.
>
>I was considering buying the 500D, but the way I feel just now Canon will not be getting any more of my money.
All I can offer is my personal experience:
I used a 20D for 4 years without a single problem of any kind.
I have had a 50D since February and have had two problems. A couple of
weeks ago, it developed a problem with its main thumb wheel (the one
right behind the shutter release). It no longer functioned for any
purpose. I sent it in for warranty repair. I am supposed to receive it
back today by FedEx. We will see if they fixed it. I had another
problem last February that I can't necessarily blame on the camera: I
had a single non-recoverable picture on my CompactFlash. It read
similar to a bad sector on a hard disk and was non-recoverable. I
reformatted the flash card and will have to wait to see if it happens
again.
Gary
John McWilliams
Agreed it isn't a proper sampling in that respect. However, if it's big
enough sample and it isn't about Kodak in the Rochester area for
example, the reported failure/problem rates should be a good *relative*
indicator.
--
john mcwilliams
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
I had no more pushed the 'Send' button for my previous message when the
FedEx package arrived. A quick check seems to indicate that they fixed
the problem. I will have to give it a more detailed workout this
weekend.
Gary
David J Taylor
[]
>> I guess it depends on your approach:
>>
>> - take it to a repair centre and say you want it fixed
>>
>> - take it back to the original vendor and say it must have been
>> faulty to only last this long.
>
> - contact the manufacturer, most effectively by sending a nice request
> to senior management
In the EU, your first point of contact has to be with the vendor who sold
the camera to you, if you want a refund for early failure. By taking it
to a repair centre or the manufacturer you may be ruling out some of your
options. Take a look at the Guardian articles which were cited.
Cheers,
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<GfxYl.41572$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
In the USA at least, pursuing a possible warranty claim with the
manufacturer would not foreclose any other recourse.
John Navas
wrote in <h0u55i$c3k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> You can't make that assumption unless you can show the sample to be
>> representative of the universe, which it clearly isn't.
>
>Agreed it isn't a proper sampling in that respect. However, if it's big
>enough sample and it isn't about Kodak in the Rochester area for
>example, the reported failure/problem rates should be a good *relative*
>indicator.
Again, you can't make that assumption -- it's not statistically valid.
There can easily be unknown sample bias and/or error that could be
substantially skewing the results. It's probably (but not necessarily)
better than anecdotal data on Usenet or the Web, but clearly worse than
statistically valid sampling.
John McWilliams
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h0u55i$c3k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> You can't make that assumption unless you can show the sample to be
>>> representative of the universe, which it clearly isn't.
>> Agreed it isn't a proper sampling in that respect. However, if it's big
>> enough sample and it isn't about Kodak in the Rochester area for
>> example, the reported failure/problem rates should be a good *relative*
>> indicator.
>
> Again, you can't make that assumption -- it's not statistically valid.
> There can easily be unknown sample bias and/or error that could be
> substantially skewing the results.
I'm aware of that: That's why I mentioned Kodak in the Rochester area- a
very serious skewing of bias.
> It's probably (but not necessarily)
> better than anecdotal data on Usenet or the Web, but clearly worse than
> statistically valid sampling.
Depending on the size of the sample, way better than usenet anecdotes.
--
JOhn McWilliams
I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
John Navas
>... I had another
>problem last February that I can't necessarily blame on the camera: I
>had a single non-recoverable picture on my CompactFlash. It read
>similar to a bad sector on a hard disk and was non-recoverable. I
>reformatted the flash card and will have to wait to see if it happens
>again.
The error might indicate defective or even counterfeit memory (a problem
even with branded memory from reputable dealers) and could cost you some
priceless images. Why not replace it? Given the low cost of flash
memory these days I personally wouldn't take the risk.
John Navas
wrote in <h0u9n2$sfk$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> It's probably (but not necessarily)
>> better than anecdotal data on Usenet or the Web, but clearly worse than
>> statistically valid sampling.
>
>Depending on the size of the sample, way better than usenet anecdotes.
With all due respect, the size of the sample is not helpful -- a larger
sample with a certain bias or error is no more representative of the
universe than a smaller sample with that same bias or error, and could
even be worse, since the smaller sample might actually be closer to the
universe.
Doug Jewell
>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>
> I have experience, not bias.
My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
then dealing with sending them away for repair:
1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
qualify for sure).
4. Canon
5. Nikon
What did we try to sell the most? Nikon - the kick-backs for
the salesperson were better (ie sell a certain qty and score
a free camera).
What did the staff buy themselves? Canon or Sony (most of
the Nikon freebies got sold back to the store for sale to
customers, and the salesperson would then buy a Canon or Sony).
Doug Jewell
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>
> The most reliable SLR cameras are Fuji with 3% serious problems.
>
> The least reliable SLR cameras are Nikon with 7% serious problems.
>
> Olympus, Canon and Sony SLRs are in the middle with 4-5% serious
> problems.
>
in retail.
I'd rank them as
1. Sony
2/3 Pentax/Olympus
4 Canon
5 Nikon
We didn't sell fuji so I can't rank them.
--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
Doug Jewell
Because people who have had a fault are more likely to
respond, it will likely show a higher failure rate than the
acual failure rate. But that higher failure rate should
remain fairly consistent across brands.
ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7%
Nikon, when the actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely
to report faults than owners of other brands.
John McWilliams
John: I am pretty aware of the pitfalls of sampling and statistics
(well, 94.8% of them). Your caveats are valid, as is my general assertion.
--
john mcwilliams
Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
John Navas
<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
<4a32d36e$0$32392$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> With all due respect, the size of the sample is not helpful -- a larger
>> sample with a certain bias or error is no more representative of the
>> universe than a smaller sample with that same bias or error, and could
>> even be worse, since the smaller sample might actually be closer to the
>> universe.
>>
>But the sample should remain consistent between brands.
>Because people who have had a fault are more likely to
>respond, it will likely show a higher failure rate than the
>acual failure rate. But that higher failure rate should
>remain fairly consistent across brands.
>ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7%
>Nikon, when the actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
>It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely
>to report faults than owners of other brands.
Unfortunately, unless you just care about the CR population, it just
doesn't work that way. The reason is that you have no way of knowing if
the CR sample is biased for or against a particular manufacturer as
compared to the universe.
For example, let's suppose CR published a scathing review of product C
and a glowing review of product N. That might not only bias the buying
habits of the CR sample as compared to the universe, it might also
influence how they report -- when people are told a product is crappy
then they tend to be more vocal about issues and vice versa.
If you can't control sampling bias and error, as in the case of CR, then
you simply can't make any sort of valid generalization of the universe
from the results. All you have is interesting data.
John Navas
<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
<4a32d1da$0$32392$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>
>> I have experience, not bias.
>My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
>then dealing with sending them away for repair:
>1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
>lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
>2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
>qualify for sure).
>4. Canon
>5. Nikon
My experience on service and support:
1. Nikon
2. Sony
2. Pentax / Olympus
5. Canon
Stephen Henning
> as i understand it, consumer reports reliability ratings are based on
> subscribers sending in surveys. people with problems are more likely
> to respond, skewing the numbers higher.
First you are picked at random to and asked to be surveyed. Then you
must respond about most everything you own from cars and TVs to
household appliances and cameras. So the sample is very large and
respondents can't just answer one part of the survey.
I am not a CR subscriber but was included in one of their surveys
because I use their online products.
It might not be statistically perfect, but it certainly is much better
than anything else that is out there.
Some brands which were not included in the results had too few users to
form a valid statistical sample. Some brands which are not sold now were
sold to people who took the survey this past year.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
John McWilliams
Statistically not relevant, with all due respect.
Personal biases tend to skew perceptions.
--
John McWilliams
John Navas
wrote in <h0v51r$gc9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)
Ray Fischer
>out of 77 photographers, 8 canon dslrs, 2 canon g9s, 1 hasselblad and
>zero nikon cameras (1 nikon lens, however) failed.
77 out of how many millions?
Anecdotal claims are crap.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>>>You have experience with the manufacturer if you've bought from that
>>>manufacturer before,
>>
>>Do you know what you call people who rely upon a sample size of one or
>>two to make judgements about millions of items?
>>
>>Suckers.
>
>How nice.
>
>iMy own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
>statistically valid,
And do you compare "dozens" of Canon cameras against "dozens" of Nikon
cameras and "dozens" of Sony cameras? Do you ensure that the cameras
get an equal workout? Do you consider major failues to be the same as
minor issues?
If you think that dozens out of millions is "statistically valid"
then you clearly know nothing about statistics. If you haven't
controlled for usage and sample size then your opinions are no more
valid than any other opinions.
> and I also use the experience of many others.
And to think that you were just saying that self-selected reports
weren't valid.
>Regardless, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I'm not fooled by your claims.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Which is why we rely on large surveys such as those done by Consumer
Reports.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
daveFaktor
How about this for unreliability statistics?
When I took my new 20D into Canon for repair of a known fault when
changing 70 - 200 lenses and a grip that only provided power when it
felt like it; There was a meter (4 feet)square crate of DSLRs mine was
added to that was the week's 'take' and nearly ready to send off to
Canon's only Australian repair centre.
A year or so later I took my 5D in for repairs and the same thing... A
seriously large crate of cameras, all with warranty documentation held
in place by rubber bands only this time instead of being full it was
only 3/4 full. It still took over 2 weeks for them to attend to the repairs.
Nikon contract out repairs. The local repair centre (Andersons) have
only 4 technicians. I took my then new s5 Fuji to them for repair
because it got dropped. They rang 2 days later and said it was ready...
New case and all. Now it got a little badge that says it's a D200!
Earlier this year Nikon announced a firmware upgrade for the SB900. I
couldn't update it because at the time I only had Fuji cameras so I took
it to Andersons. They did it the same day. When my new D700 had a
problem it was pretty much the same story except it took them 3 days to
repair because they "had to get part from Sydney"!
Now my seat of the pants statistical generator tells me anyone who owns
a Canon can look forward to long queues at the repair shop. Visual
evidence = high unreliability.
If however you are a Nikon owner, without ever needing to send your
camera back to Nikon you can get it fixed in a few days = Either the
local repair centre is unique or Nikon cameras don't break as often as
Canon ones do.
There will never be statistics released to confirm or deny any one brand
as being unreliable but there seemed to be a heck of a lot of Canon
firmware upgrades and flakey problems reported on the Internet but fewer
updates and no recalls for Nikon stuff. For all it's life, The Fuji s5
has only ever had one firmware update released. The 20D had at least four!
Surely common sense would suggest the sheer volume of Canon owners
complaining of 10D, 20D, 5D and 1D camera problems but relative silence
for the Nikon camp must mean something?
Owning Canon cameras has been a kaleidoscope of horrors for me.
Everything from back focus errors (in them all) to mirrors falling out,
lockups when changing lenses and grip failure have surfaced with all of
them. Both my 5Ds had the mirror fall out! All the cameras (6 of them)
wouldn't focus properly until Canon serviced them under warranty. None
of my Fuji's or Nikon's have had any problems I didn't cause.
It might sound like a bit of Canon bashing but what happened to my Canon
cameras is not unique. I haven't come across anyone yet who's had Nikon
warranty issues.
John McWilliams
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:05:30 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
>>> My experience on service and support:
>>> 1. Nikon
>>> 2. Sony
>>> 2. Pentax / Olympus
>>> 5. Canon
>> Statistically not relevant, with all due respect.
>> Personal biases tend to skew perceptions.
>
> It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)
Probably more so, fwiw! :)
--
jpmcw
Ray Fischer
>>Because people who have had a fault are more likely to
>>respond, it will likely show a higher failure rate than the
>>acual failure rate. But that higher failure rate should
>>remain fairly consistent across brands.
>>ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7%
>>Nikon, when the actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
>>It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely
>>to report faults than owners of other brands.
>
>Unfortunately, unless you just care about the CR population, it just
>doesn't work that way. The reason is that you have no way of knowing if
>the CR sample is biased for or against a particular manufacturer as
>compared to the universe.
How would it be biased? The questions are simple: What camera do you
have and has it needed repair in the last year?
>For example, let's suppose CR published a scathing review of product C
>and a glowing review of product N.
Let's suppose that the moon is made of swiss cheese! Let's suppose
you have an honest objection!
> That might not only bias the buying
>habits of the CR sample as compared to the universe,
Nope. The survey has NOTHING to do with buying habits. It's only
about repair history.
> it might also
>influence how they report -- when people are told a product is crappy
>then they tend to be more vocal about issues and vice versa.
People tend to justify their purchases whatever they are
>If you can't control sampling bias and error, as in the case of CR,
You've yet to identify any. Lying about CR doesn't represent flaws in
their methodology.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
And you're basing your assessment of an international corporation's
camera quality based upon what you see in a backwater store?
Very impressive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
daveFaktor
USA. In fact... The population of New York city roughly equals the
population of Australia yet there were more Canon DSLRs sold in
Australia in 2006 than in New York city.
So consider the backwater store as being bigger than B&H. and Adorama
put together. If you saw that many cameras heading to a repair centre in
either of those stores, you'd probably wonder if there was a problem
with reliability... Oh wait a minute. This is Ray we're talking about here.
J. Clarke
If consumer reports methodology is so sound why did I have to put two
engines in what they considered to be one of the most reliable cars on the
road in 30,000 miles? (I dumped it before it needed a third one and
replaced it with a crappy, unreliable GM product that was still going strong
at 100,000 miles). One I would consider to be a fluke, but two is a
pattern.
Atheist Chaplain
news:79hf73F...@mid.individual.net...
and you just solved your own dilemma Douggie, if the store is so large and
the population average ownership is as high as you claim, I wouldn't wonder
that they had a few cameras to go back for repairs.
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
John Navas
<4a332391$0$1608$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>CR (CU) has its place, but it's reliability methodology is not
>>statistically valid.
>
>Why not?
Asked and answered. Please keep up.
Again, it's a self-selected and non-representative sample.
Those are fatal issues in statistics.
>And their statistics are better than anything you've got.
Not true. It would be like being a little bit pregnant.
John Navas
<4a3325ee$0$1608$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)
>
>Which is why we rely on large surveys such as those done by Consumer
>Reports.
Unfortunately, that large survey is self-selected and
non-representative, and since it's not possible to correct for sample
bias and error, valid generalizations cannot be made. It's simply
interesting data, but no more valid than other interesting data.
Learn something about statistics.
John Navas
<4a33259c$0$1608$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>My own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
>>statistically valid,
>
>And do you compare "dozens" of Canon cameras against "dozens" of Nikon
>cameras and "dozens" of Sony cameras?
I don't. Please read what I write more carefully.
>If you think that dozens out of millions is "statistically valid"
>then you clearly know nothing about statistics.
I'm afraid you have that backwards.
>I'm not fooled by your claims.
You are of course free to think whatever you want, no matter how
unfounded.
Stephen Henning
> If consumer reports methodology is so sound why did I have to put two
> engines in what they considered to be one of the most reliable cars on the
> road in 30,000 miles? (I dumped it before it needed a third one and
> replaced it with a crappy, unreliable GM product that was still going strong
> at 100,000 miles). One I would consider to be a fluke, but two is a
> pattern.
Because you had a sample size of one. Repaired vehicles are typically
the least reliable since when they fix one thing they break two other
things. That is the reason they are called lemons and there are state
laws to get compensated.
CR said some failed. Yours did. That bears out the fact of what CR
said. They didn't say yours wouldn't fail. CR has a sample size of
275,000.
CR is looking at past performance. Their current data is based on years
2004 to 2008. Sometimes a manufacturer has a bad year after several
good years, or a bad model after several good models. In any case, the
data is what it is, a very accurate picture of the past 5 years.
This isn't rocket science folks, it is statistics. Some fail. With a
large sample size, you see how many fail. With a small sample size you
don't have the slightest idea of how big the problem is. A failure or
lack of failure gives you a very unfounded sense of the larger
population. Sample sizes should be greater than 3,000 for the small
numbers of failures we are looking at.
John Navas
<4a335108$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>You've yet to identify any. Lying about CR doesn't represent flaws in
>their methodology.
Thanks for conceding the point.
With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.
--
John
John Navas
wrote in <pighash-2A1CA7...@news.isp.giganews.com>:
>This isn't rocket science folks, it is statistics.
It's a survey, *not* statistics.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
-Benjamin Disraeli, as reported by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
Ray Fischer
So?
> In fact... The population of New York city roughly equals the
>population of Australia yet there were more Canon DSLRs sold in
>Australia in 2006 than in New York city.
Which doesn't address my question. And you profess interesting
knowledge about Canon's sales figures. How did you come by them?
>So consider the backwater store as being bigger than B&H. and Adorama
>put together.
Must be the only camera store in Australia, then.
Do you think that seeing cameras being readied for shipment in a large
camera store is unusual?
> If you saw that many cameras heading to a repair centre in
>either of those stores, you'd probably wonder if there was a problem
>with reliability...
No, I'd wonder about their procedures. I have training in science and
statistics and I don't base such judgements just on appearances.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Gee, if the lottery is such a bad bet then why do people keep winning
the lottery?
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Stephen Henning <pig...@aol.com>
>>This isn't rocket science folks, it is statistics.
>
>It's a survey, *not* statistics.
ROFL! You really are a clueless twit!
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 13 Jun 2009 07:11:04 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
><4a335108$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>You've yet to identify any. Lying about CR doesn't represent flaws in
>>their methodology.
>
>Thanks for conceding the point.
Thanks for admitting that you're an ignorant ass.
>With that insult you concede the debate.
There was no insult, asshole.
And yes, THAT was an insult, you sleazy coward. Now declare victory
and run away.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 13 Jun 2009 03:57:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
><4a332391$0$1608$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>CR (CU) has its place, but it's reliability methodology is not
>>>statistically valid.
>>
>>Why not?
>
>Asked and answered.
Refuted. Why not?
>Again, it's a self-selected and non-representative sample.
Wrong and wrong. The survey doesn't ask people to report if their
camera broke, and the survey is representative. CR knows the math of
statistical sampling. You do not.
>>And their statistics are better than anything you've got.
>
>Not true.
Then let's see YOUR results.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)
>>
>>Which is why we rely on large surveys such as those done by Consumer
>>Reports.
>
>Unfortunately, that large survey is self-selected and
>non-representative,
You can keep repeating that bullshit but it's still a lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>My own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
>>>statistically valid,
>>
>>And do you compare "dozens" of Canon cameras against "dozens" of Nikon
>>cameras and "dozens" of Sony cameras?
>
>I don't. Please read what I write more carefully.
So according to you, your sample of ONE brand of camera and "dozens"
of cameras makes you a better judge of reliability than CRs tens of
thousands of samples and all major camera makers.
You really are an idiot.
>>If you think that dozens out of millions is "statistically valid"
>>then you clearly know nothing about statistics.
>
>I'm afraid you have that backwards.
Nope. You really are an idiot.
>>I'm not fooled by your claims.
>
>You are of course free to think whatever you want,
And I'm even free to point out that you're an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Jun 2009 03:57:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
>> in <4a332391$0$1608$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> CR (CU) has its place, but it's reliability methodology is not
>>>> statistically valid.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Asked and answered.
>
> Refuted. Why not?
>
>> Again, it's a self-selected and non-representative sample.
>
> Wrong and wrong. The survey doesn't ask people to report if their
> camera broke, and the survey is representative. CR knows the math of
> statistical sampling. You do not.
It is still self-selected--Consumer reports doesn't sit a bunch of people
selected at random down in a room and have them all fill out a survey, the
people filling out the survey know what it's about up front and decide for
themselve whether they want to respond, making it self-selected, and since
it is answered only by those who both own the product in question and
subscribe to Consumer Reports its not representative of the entire
population of owners of that kind of product. It has the same sort of error
of methodology that led the Chicago Tribume to report "Dewey Defeats
Truman".
As for knowing the math, there has been no assertion that their calculation
is in error, the concern expressed is over their sampling method.
>>> And their statistics are better than anything you've got.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> Then let's see YOUR results.
Wanna buy a dead most reliable car in the world? Only 30,000 miles and
needs its third engine.
J. Clarke
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>> My own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
>>>> statistically valid,
>>>
>>> And do you compare "dozens" of Canon cameras against "dozens" of
>>> Nikon cameras and "dozens" of Sony cameras?
>>
>> I don't. Please read what I write more carefully.
>
> So according to you, your sample of ONE brand of camera and "dozens"
> of cameras makes you a better judge of reliability than CRs tens of
> thousands of samples and all major camera makers.
>
> You really are an idiot.
>
>>> If you think that dozens out of millions is "statistically valid"
>>> then you clearly know nothing about statistics.
>>
>> I'm afraid you have that backwards.
>
> Nope. You really are an idiot.
Calling someone who raised a legitimate concern "an idiot" doesn't do a
thing for your credibility you know.
>>> I'm not fooled by your claims.
>>
>> You are of course free to think whatever you want,
>
> And I'm even free to point out that you're an idiot.
And I'm free to point out that you're a jackass.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On 13 Jun 2009 03:57:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
>>> in <4a332391$0$1608$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> CR (CU) has its place, but it's reliability methodology is not
>>>>> statistically valid.
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> Asked and answered.
>>
>> Refuted. Why not?
>>
>>> Again, it's a self-selected and non-representative sample.
>>
>> Wrong and wrong. The survey doesn't ask people to report if their
>> camera broke, and the survey is representative. CR knows the math of
>> statistical sampling. You do not.
>
>It is still self-selected
Learn what that term means.
>-selected--Consumer reports doesn't sit a bunch of people
>selected at random down in a room and have them all fill out a survey, the
>people filling out the survey know what it's about up front and decide for
>themselve whether they want to respond, making it self-selected, and since
By that standard ALL surveys are "self selected".
CR's methods are valid. Your objections are not.
>>>> And their statistics are better than anything you've got.
>>>
>>> Not true.
>>
>> Then let's see YOUR results.
>
>Wanna buy a dead most reliable car in the world?
Run along, idiot. Go buy some lottery tickets.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> My own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
>>>>> statistically valid,
>>>>
>>>> And do you compare "dozens" of Canon cameras against "dozens" of
>>>> Nikon cameras and "dozens" of Sony cameras?
>>>
>>> I don't. Please read what I write more carefully.
>>
>> So according to you, your sample of ONE brand of camera and "dozens"
>> of cameras makes you a better judge of reliability than CRs tens of
>> thousands of samples and all major camera makers.
>>
>> You really are an idiot.
>>
>>>> If you think that dozens out of millions is "statistically valid"
>>>> then you clearly know nothing about statistics.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you have that backwards.
>>
>> Nope. You really are an idiot.
>
>Calling someone who raised a legitimate concern "an idiot" doesn't do a
>thing for your credibility you know.
But according to you, no surveys are valid because according to you
they are all self selected. It appears what we have here is one idiot
defending another.
>>>> I'm not fooled by your claims.
>>>
>>> You are of course free to think whatever you want,
>>
>> And I'm even free to point out that you're an idiot.
>
>And I'm free to point out that you're a jackass.
I may be a jackass but at least I'm not an idiot. Learn something
about statistics and sampling before you embarrass yourself further.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SMS
> Wrong and wrong. The survey doesn't ask people to report if their
> camera broke, and the survey is representative. CR knows the math of
> statistical sampling. You do not.
LOL, the statistical sampling math isn't all that hard yet Navas always
gets his panties in a bunch when the survey results for a particular
product or service don't align with what he's purchased. This goes _way_
back.
Here's one easy to use calculator for sampling sizes and margins of
error if Navas wants to begin educating himself:
"http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm"
The complaints about Consumer Reports are rarely about the sample size,
they're that the respondents are all Consumer Reports subscribers that
choose to respond rather than the survey being double-blind. So if you
believe that a large number of CR subscribers are a) not representative
of the general population when it comes to their usage of the product or
service, _and_ b) are more likely to lie about one product or service
versus a competing product or service, then the complaints would have
some validity, but of course no one has ever For example, CR does a
very large survey each year on cellular providers with a statistical
sample so large that the margin of error is extremely small. Navas hates
that survey because his carrier, AT&T (Cingular) always does very
poorly, so he makes up stories about problems with the survey. Yet the
survey isn't asking subscribers "which is the best carrier" it's simply
asking them a series of questions of their experiences with their own
carrier.
John Navas
<4a33df64$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Gee, if the lottery is such a bad bet then why do people keep winning
>the lottery?
>
>Idiot.
If you don't think lotteries are a bad bet, then you are the "idiot",
with no real understanding of probability and game theory.
John Navas
<4a33e067$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Again, it's a self-selected and non-representative sample.
>
>Wrong and wrong. The survey doesn't ask people to report if their
>camera broke, and the survey is representative. CR knows the math of
>statistical sampling. You do not.
CR only calls it a survey -- no statistical claims are made.
I'll not respond further to this unless you can come up with something
more than unsupported claims.
John Navas
<4a33e08b$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
You can keep repeating that denial but it's still baloney.
John Navas
<4a33e160$0$1645$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>I don't. Please read what I write more carefully.
>
>So according to you, your sample of ONE brand of camera and "dozens"
>of cameras makes you a better judge of reliability than CRs tens of
>thousands of samples and all major camera makers.
I said nothing of the sort.
>You really are an idiot.
You really are a rude ass.
>>You are of course free to think whatever you want,
>
>And I'm even free to point out that you're an idiot.
Which only serves to expose you as a rude ass.
John Navas
<4a3413d7$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Calling someone who raised a legitimate concern "an idiot" doesn't do a
>>thing for your credibility you know.
>
>But according to you, no surveys are valid because according to you
>they are all self selected. It appears what we have here is one idiot
>defending another.
He said nothing of the sort.
>I may be a jackass but at least I'm not an idiot. Learn something
>about statistics and sampling before you embarrass yourself further.
You need to take your own advice --
what you've been posting is nonsense.
Allen
> On 13 Jun 2009 17:18:28 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
> <4a33df64$0$1642$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Gee, if the lottery is such a bad bet then why do people keep winning
>> the lottery?
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> If you don't think lotteries are a bad bet, then you are the "idiot",
> with no real understanding of probability and game theory.
>
dollar in the hope of winning several million is not an act of
probability; it is an act of hoping to win big from a totally trivial
investment. This is where probability to ceases to be the operative
factor and game theory takes over. To think otherwise is to think that a
new drug doubles your risk of cancer, while offering a relief from pain.
This despite that risk doubles from one chance in two million to one
chance in a million. A trivial risk--probably lower than getting into a
car every day for a year and being killed or severely injured in an
accident.
Allen
John Navas
in <I4Sdnb2jfogWjKjX...@giganews.com>:
It's actually just entertainment, which has a predictable cost, just
like any other form of commercial entertainment. Anything more is
dangerous fantasy.
Ray Fischer
>>the lottery?
>>
>>Idiot.
>
>If you don't think lotteries are a bad bet, then you are the "idiot",
Apparently you're too stupid to notice that I was parodying your own
logic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>>>Again, it's a self-selected and non-representative sample.
>>
>>Wrong and wrong. The survey doesn't ask people to report if their
>>camera broke, and the survey is representative. CR knows the math of
>>statistical sampling. You do not.
>
>CR only calls it a survey -- no statistical claims are made.
Liar.
>I'll not respond further to this unless you can come up with something
>more than unsupported claims.
As opposed to your own unsupported claims, hypocrite?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Keeping in mind that you're the dumbshit who thinks that your sample of
"dozens" of cameras is statistically valid but CRs sample of thousands
is not statistically valid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>>>Calling someone who raised a legitimate concern "an idiot" doesn't do a
>>>thing for your credibility you know.
>>
>>But according to you, no surveys are valid because according to you
>>they are all self selected. It appears what we have here is one idiot
>>defending another.
>
>He said nothing of the sort.
Yes he did, liar.
>>I may be a jackass but at least I'm not an idiot. Learn something
>>about statistics and sampling before you embarrass yourself further.
>
>You need to take your own advice --
Oooo! The 4th grade retort "I know you are but what am I?"
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>So according to you, your sample of ONE brand of camera and "dozens"
>>of cameras makes you a better judge of reliability than CRs tens of
>>thousands of samples and all major camera makers.
>
>I said nothing of the sort.
Yes you did, asshole. You claimed that your sample of "dozens" is
statistically valid, even though you have done NONE of the math to
show that. You have claimed that CRs sample of thousands is NOT
statistically valid.
>>You really are an idiot.
>
>You really are a rude ass.
I don't like liars.
>>>You are of course free to think whatever you want,
>>
>>And I'm even free to point out that you're an idiot.
>
>Which only serves to expose you as a rude ass.
And you as a dishonest hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Navas
<4a355c21$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Your posting style has any sane person baffled. ;)
John Navas
<4a355d44$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>[SNIP]
I'm pleased to inform you that you've earned a coveted spot in my twit
filter. It's not easy -- posts have to be all crap and no content --
but you cleared the bar with room to spare! Have a nice day.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman