D(isappointing)5000
trouble
grain of salt is that the units, camera or lenses, that are provided for
review are likely to be cherry-picked units that may or may not bear any
resemblance to the unit you purchase at retail. That is simply the reality
of mass manufacturing of technologically complex items and the limits of
quality control.
There is a reason why Leicas command the prices they do, particularly the
lenses.
I use Nikons but my lifetime experience is that Nikon quality control does
not always justify Nikon price points.
An outlet that gives bad reviews is not going to be supplied for long with
new items to review--the whole process is filled with inherent conflicts of
interest. No matter what claims are made about the independence of editorial
staff from business/advertising those claims all have the odor of freshly
baked cow pie.
Having recently experienced a D5000 that can not accurately focus, along
with being recalled because of defective electronics, I would urge all
readers to abandon any na�ve ideas they may have about the absolute
reliability of any product reviews.
You have not bought many lenses if you have not purchased at least one whose
performance varies painfully from the glowing reviews the test unit
generated.
Product reviews from trusted sources are valuable but your mileage may vary.
D. Peter Maus
This has always been true. Reviewers have their own tastes,
priorities, and often (though not always) agendae.
This is why I've never found Consumer Reports reviews useful.
Politics aside, they simply don't have my needs/uses for a product
in mind when they conduct their tests.
Useful information when choosing/researching a product can come
from direct hands-on, personal experience from people I know,
reviews from trusted sources and overall history of a manufacturer's
line.
But you don't really know of a product's suitability until you've
used it in the field, over a period of time.
Some Truth
>
>There is a reason why Leicas command the prices they do, particularly the
>lenses.
Right.
A detailed thread with photos of camera body failures and other camera
problems, focusing, color-balance, IR filter errors, etc.:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/25121-base-plate-failure.html
The Leica M8 can't produce images any better than a $29 Barbie-Cam from
your local Wally World. The horrendous color-shift vignetting problems from
these Leica images can't even be corrected in editing.
"A Fool and His Money Are Soon Parted."
You just go on believing that "you get what you pay for", while the rest of
us more experienced people get to have the last hearty laugh.
David Kilpatrick
> One reason that all hardware reviews should be read with the proverbial
> grain of salt is that the units, camera or lenses, that are provided for
> review are likely to be cherry-picked units that may or may not bear any
> resemblance to the unit you purchase at retail.
As a reviewer for 35 years now I can assure that's not the case. Very
often the situation is the exact reverse - the only unit they can find
to lend you is one which has been beaten up at trade shows, taken out by
reps and was one of the first bodies the marketing dept got for the
launch event.
I've even been into the warehouse of importers in the past, and picked
items to test off the shelf.
I have just had the D3000 here for only 3 days. The review required did
not have to assess whether it would last six weeks, or try to find a
fault which only a user might uncover by chance. I have a D5000
personally and much of the review came down to comparing features (for
example, the D3000 has both a larger viewfinder and a larger rear
screen) and a few aspects of basic image quality relative to previous
10.2 megapixel variants. My D3000 arrived after being tested by someone
else and had the strap fitted plus a charged battery.
I'd have kept it longer, but I asked for the 70-300mm VR with it, and
this was the only sample of that lens they have in the UK for demo
purposes, it was needed for a trade show at the weekend so I decided to
return the entire kit.
The D300s has arrived today. I'll have that for a maximum of 10 days.
That is how the roster works. I think I got a fairly new one, it had
clearly been unpacked and handled, but the strap was not unwrapped and
the battery had not been charged. They sent me a 16-85mm VR on request
(a demo one which had been out and around) and a 10-24mm (appears to be
new stock and not even to have been opened - straight from the
warehouse, I think).
The UK importers PR depts do not even have the facilities to test or
cherry-pick items. They can, sure, make sure the camera is complete and
after every reviewer is finished, the gear spends a day in service being
cleaned and checked for damage. They normally have to replace lens caps,
instructions and software because journalists keep or lose them. I
don't, I'm very careful indeed and it helps me get loan items when
others find it difficult.
I've had poor items from all the major brands, returned them, requested
second samples, told them if I found the fault to be repeated. And
printed the same. Sometimes I have had a 'discussion' on my hands trying
to point out deficiencies I've found, ending up with referral of my
comments to Japan. Every single maker I've dealt with has taken this
seriously, there has been no question of withholding products in future
- exactly the reverse. I have been sent two products this year by one
maker before anyone else got them, because that maker wanted advance
warning of how the reviews were likely to come out!
They don't even trust their own products sometimes.
David
Rich
news:x7adna-QLbFckxbX...@bt.com:
It's nice to know some reviewers will print what they find.
You know how long the crickets chirped before Dpreview reviewed the
1DMkIII? Forever! They never stopped because the focus problems never
got fixed! Whores. Also, reviewers NEVER seem to catch problems on
their own. It is always the user doing cursory checks who pick them up.
Odd, huh?
Rich The Troll Marches On
>
>It's nice to know some reviewers will print what they find.
>You know how long the crickets chirped before Dpreview reviewed the
>1DMkIII? Forever! They never stopped because the focus problems never
>got fixed! Whores. Also, reviewers NEVER seem to catch problems on
>their own. It is always the user doing cursory checks who pick them up.
>Odd, huh?
>
You're just now catching on to inane biases in online reviews? This
includes their reviews of P&S cameras, where they get less money from their
hosts if more of them were to be sold than their cash-cow--the dslr
reviews.
People who actually test cameras personally find out information is
180-degrees different than posted online reviews. Trolls like you will
never know this. Online information posted by biased fools is your only
life, the only food for your existence. Why should you question it. Without
their intentional biases you'd die.
You eat, live, and breathe online biased ignorance and then relentlessly
spew it back to the world.
Nice life you have there. I'd shoot myself if I were you. Go for it!
David Kilpatrick
Also, reviewers NEVER seem to catch problems on
> their own. It is always the user doing cursory checks who pick them up.
> Odd, huh?
Not so odd. Maybe a few dozen, maybe a few hundred people using a camera
in different ways - then something comes out which is not working right.
All the reviewers could have missed it. It takes one in a hundred final
buyers to spot a problem, then others test out the situation/settings,
and find it's a real problem.
I pay a lot of attention to 'crowd sourced' opinions about DSLRs,
especially from professionals. People find out things you might miss
even if you had the camera for a year to review.
David
Matt Clara
news:h6evr3$2uv5$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> One reason that all ***
"Trouble"? I think you mean "troll".
Robert Coe
<rt...@rttmo.com> wrote:
Actually, how do we know you're not Rich? Since you don't use anything
resembling a name, you could be anybody.
Bob
C J Campbell
Pure hogwash. You obviously have no idea how reviewers obtain their cameras.
Some, like David Kilpatrick, get demo models which are likely to have
been run hard and put away wet. Many of them are pre-production and
often full of bugs or non-working features.
Others buy their cameras from camera stores, as the much-maligned Ken
Rockwell does. Ken usually gives first impressions from a model that he
first sees at some trade show or just a company announcement, but if he
is really interested he will buy a copy. He lets you know in his review
where he got the camera.
Thom Hogan either buys his cameras or he borrows them from people who
bought them.
Consumer Reports buys all their cameras from cameras stores using
anonymous purchasers.
Most reviewers, from dpreview to Thom Hogan to Moose Peterson, can get
pretty caustic. And yet they continue to have access to review cameras.
Hogan blew the whistle on the D3X's viewfinder problems. He still gets
cameras. He has been very critical of how Nikon has handled the D5000's
problems. He still gets cameras.
But you -- you come in here hiding behind a fake identity and try to
tell people who work with cameras every day how camera reviews work.
Now, why should we trust you at all?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
D. Peter Maus
Actually, he's not entirely wrong. While there are many reviewers
who get 'off the shelf products,' in some cases, items ARE hand
selected by manufacturers, and delivered to a handful of exclusive
reviewers expecting a favorable review.
A classic example came from the release of very highly
anticipated "Grundig" (built by Tecsun based on a Lextronix
specification, with a Drake IF strip) Satellit 800 Millenium
worldband radio.
The most widely anticipated reviews were from Tom Sundstrom for
RNW. Most notably from his 'pull no punches' style, and his highly
respected laboratory evaluation process. But that review was
delayed. And delayed. And delayed. The radios promised to Sundstrom
were never released to him.
Instead, not one, but 9 hand selected radios were released to
Larry Magne at PWBR, who had already declared the radio to be, and
this is a direct quote, "the best shortwave radio in the world."
This, more than a year before the first prototype was built.
Larry and his evaluators, considered to be questionable by
shortwave broadcasters, got 9 hand selected prototypes months before
the radio was released for sale.
Bob Grove also got a factory-provided group of samples for his
review in Monitoring Times. Also months before the radio was releasaed.
Sundstrom eventually had to buy his samples at retail from The
Sharper Image, and found them wanting. Two examples failed out of
the box. The third was highly mediocre.
But PWBR reviews had been out for months, highly favorable,
highly rated. And Lextronix reupped their advertising buy for the
next year's PWBR.
So, there are cases where a reviewer is of less integrity, and
comes by examples of products from highly select sources, usually
direct from the manufacturers.
The reliable, and respected reviewers don't do things this way.
But they are often few and far between. Regardless of the product
category, or the target audience.
> Most reviewers, from dpreview to Thom Hogan to Moose Peterson, can get
> pretty caustic. And yet they continue to have access to review cameras.
> Hogan blew the whistle on the D3X's viewfinder problems. He still gets
> cameras. He has been very critical of how Nikon has handled the D5000's
> problems. He still gets cameras.
The value of a fair review cannot be overstated for the
manufacturer. Even a caustic review has it's merits, in that it
points to areas to be improved in future releases, updates, and
upgrade models. The hit taken by a manufacturer by a respected
reviewer's pan of a new product can be minor compared to the value
of a positive review from someone known to be caustic where
appropriate.
But they're, by far, not the only critics reviewing products. And
there are more than a handful of reviewers who are not as honorable
as the likes of Thom Hogan and Moose Peterson.
And some manufacturers have no qualms about exploiting those
relationships to their profit.
Reviews, as with any other published material, need to be taken
with care. And need to be taken from multiple sources.