Has any professional review source ever noticed any problems?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 18, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    why?
    RichA, Nov 18, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    : red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    : pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    : some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    : for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    : why?

    It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers. It's
    a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by a
    user.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Nov 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:12 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >>wrote:
    >>: Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    >>: red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    >>: pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    >>: some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    >>: for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    >>: why?
    >>
    >>It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers.
    >>It's
    >>a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by
    >>a
    >>user.

    >
    > II seem to remember the odd occasion when the reviewer reported that
    > they had encountered a problem and that they had subsequently obtained
    > a replacement camera/lens from the manufacturer which enabled them to
    > satisfactorily completed the test/review. Don't ask me what they were
    > testing/reviewing though.



    Right, I've read quite a number of reviews where it was stated the tests
    could not be completed due to a fault, or only completed after a replacement
    was obtained. Since reviews are often done when an item is first released,
    or even before, it is often unknown at that stage whether the fault is
    common, or will be fixed before general release. As always, advertising
    revenue will generally determine how the reviewer responds to the liklihood
    of a serious design fault.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Nov 19, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:30:44 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:12 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : >: Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    : >: red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    : >: pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    : >: some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    : >: for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    : >: why?
    : >
    : >It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers.
    : >It's a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first
    : >by a user.
    :
    : II seem to remember the odd occasion when the reviewer reported that
    : they had encountered a problem and that they had subsequently obtained
    : a replacement camera/lens from the manufacturer which enabled them to
    : satisfactorily completed the test/review. Don't ask me what they were
    : testing/reviewing though.

    I guess I should have gone on to say that any individual reviewer should be
    more likely to find a problem than the average user, because the reviewer
    should be better at knowing what to look for.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Nov 19, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 18, 11:16 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > : Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them.  From Olympus's
    > : red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    > : pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100.  Even though
    > : some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    > : for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic.  I wonder
    > : why?
    >
    > It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers.It's
    > a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first bya
    > user.
    >
    > Bob


    Could be. But in the case of the Canon issue, it must have been
    pretty universal as the magazines at least acknowledged it, after the
    fact.
    RichA, Nov 19, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 19, 3:30 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:12 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > >On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    > >: Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them.  From Olympus's
    > >: red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    > >: pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100.  Even though
    > >: some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    > >: for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic.  I wonder
    > >: why?

    >
    > >It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers.. It's
    > >a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by a
    > >user.

    >
    > II seem to remember the odd occasion when the reviewer reported that
    > they had encountered a problem and that they had subsequently obtained
    > a replacement camera/lens from the manufacturer which enabled them to
    > satisfactorily completed the test/review. Don't ask me what they were
    > testing/reviewing though.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Aside from the Canon focus issue, the only other time I remember
    reading about any issue was a Hasselblad lens element coming out of
    one of their lenses, and it was Luminous Landscape that reported that.
    RichA, Nov 19, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 19, 4:30 am, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:12 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >
    > >>On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >>wrote:
    > >>: Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them.  From Olympus's
    > >>: red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    > >>: pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100.  Even though
    > >>: some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    > >>: for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic.  I wonder
    > >>: why?

    >
    > >>It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers.
    > >>It's
    > >>a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by
    > >>a
    > >>user.

    >
    > > II seem to remember the odd occasion when the reviewer reported that
    > > they had encountered a problem and that they had subsequently obtained
    > > a replacement camera/lens from the manufacturer which enabled them to
    > > satisfactorily completed the test/review. Don't ask me what they were
    > > testing/reviewing though.

    >
    > Right, I've read quite a number of reviews where it was stated the tests
    > could not be completed due to a fault, or only completed after a replacement
    > was obtained. Since reviews are often done when an item is first released,
    > or even before, it is often unknown at that stage whether the fault is
    > common, or will be fixed before general release. As always, advertising
    > revenue will generally determine how the reviewer responds to the liklihood
    > of a serious design fault.
    >
    > Trevor.


    But where they one-off quality control faults, or were they more
    widespread design or production flaws?
    RichA, Nov 19, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Nov 19, 3:30 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:12 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >> >On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    >> >: Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them.  From Olympus's
    >> >: red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    >> >: pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100.  Even though
    >> >: some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    >> >: for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic.  I wonder
    >> >: why?

    >>
    >> >It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers. It's
    >> >a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by a
    >> >user.

    >>
    >> II seem to remember the odd occasion when the reviewer reported that
    >> they had encountered a problem and that they had subsequently obtained
    >> a replacement camera/lens from the manufacturer which enabled them to
    >> satisfactorily completed the test/review. Don't ask me what they were
    >> testing/reviewing though.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Aside from the Canon focus issue, the only other time I remember
    >reading about any issue was a Hasselblad lens element coming out of
    >one of their lenses, and it was Luminous Landscape that reported that.



    Luminous Landscape have probably had to get their act together after
    the embarrassment of completely missing the problems caused by the
    lack of an infra-red filter over the Leica M8's sensor.

    Unfortunately, it appears that Luminous Landscape was not the only
    review site not to notice the M8's problems, in spite of their
    severity. Indeed, at least one site later posted an admission that
    they had found the problem, but decided not to mention it.

    Loyalty to a brand can go too far. ;-)
    Bruce, Nov 19, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/18/2011 11:16 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA<> wrote:
    > : Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    > : red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    > : pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    > : some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    > : for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    > : why?
    >
    > It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers. It's
    > a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by a
    > user.
    >


    Also, reviewers rarely act emotionally. the successful ones analyze.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 19, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:44:29 -0500, PeterN wrote:

    > On 11/18/2011 11:16 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA<> wrote:
    >>: Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    >>: red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    >>: pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    >>: some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    >>: for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    >>: why?
    >>
    >> It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers. It's
    >> a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by a
    >> user.
    >>

    >
    > Also, reviewers rarely act emotionally. the successful ones analyze.


    Is there such an animal as a 'successful reviewer'?
    Irwell, Nov 20, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:52:32 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2011-11-19 19:09:03 -0800, Irwell <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 17:44:29 -0500, PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 11/18/2011 11:16 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:08 -0800 (PST), RichA<> wrote:
    >>>> : Seems like it is always the amateurs that catch them. From Olympus's
    >>>> : red dot issue to Canon's focus issues to Nikon's lesser camera dead
    >>>> : pixels to Fuji's problem with blade sticking in the X100. Even though
    >>>> : some of these review sites and magazines purport to have the cameras
    >>>> : for months, they never seem to notice anything problematic. I wonder
    >>>> : why?
    >>>>
    >>>> It seems fairly obvious: there are many times as many users as reviewers. It's
    >>>> a simple matter of probabilities that most problems will be seen first by a
    >>>> user.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Also, reviewers rarely act emotionally. the successful ones analyze.

    >>
    >> Is there such an animal as a 'successful reviewer'?

    >
    > Yup! Every reviewer who ever got paid once their review appeared in
    > print, or on a web site. They got the review published, ergo they were
    > successful.
    >
    > ...and that is regardless of the accuracy of anything stated, integrity
    > of the reviewer regarding favoring the subject of the review, or not,
    > and even the opinion of those who agree or disagree with the reviewer.


    Quick, where do we sign up for this easy money?
    Irwell, Nov 20, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Nov 19, 4:30 am, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > Right, I've read quite a number of reviews where it was stated the tests
    > could not be completed due to a fault, or only completed after a
    > replacement
    > was obtained. Since reviews are often done when an item is first released,
    > or even before, it is often unknown at that stage whether the fault is
    > common, or will be fixed before general release. As always, advertising
    > revenue will generally determine how the reviewer responds to the
    > liklihood
    > of a serious design fault.
    >

    }But where they one-off quality control faults, or were they more
    }widespread design or production flaws?

    Most reviewers are not technically competent to make that decision,
    especially with only one sample to examine. IF they obtain a replacement
    with the same fault, they should report the liklihood of a design fault, but
    as I said, that often depends on their relationship with the manufacturers
    advertising department. Publication deadlines usually mean they don't
    thoroughly test in any case, and rarely test more than one sample.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Nov 21, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 20, 8:02 pm, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Nov 19, 4:30 am, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Right, I've read quite a number of reviews where it was stated the tests
    > > could not be completed due to a fault, or only completed after a
    > > replacement
    > > was obtained. Since reviews are often done when an item is first released,
    > > or even before, it is often unknown at that stage whether the fault is
    > > common, or will be fixed before general release. As always, advertising
    > > revenue will generally determine how the reviewer responds to the
    > > liklihood
    > > of a serious design fault.

    >
    > }But where they one-off quality control faults, or were they more
    > }widespread design or production flaws?
    >
    > Most reviewers are not technically competent to make that decision,
    > especially with only one sample to examine. IF they obtain a replacement
    > with the same fault, they should report the liklihood of a design fault, but
    > as I said, that often depends on their relationship with the manufacturers
    > advertising department. Publication deadlines usually mean they don't
    > thoroughly test in any case, and rarely test more than one sample.
    >
    > Trevor.


    I don't buy more than one sample yet I've seen some of the problems
    others have. Case in point, dead pixels in a couple of D90's. What
    are the odds? Also, the focus issue in a D7000. So if a problem
    (Example, the Leica M8 IR problem) is widespread enough, it becomes
    more likely a reviewer would see it than not, unless they simply
    ignore it.
    RichA, Nov 22, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/22/2011 12:39 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Nov 20, 8:02 pm, "Trevor"<> wrote:
    >> "RichA"<> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >> On Nov 19, 4:30 am, "Trevor"<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Right, I've read quite a number of reviews where it was stated the tests
    >>> could not be completed due to a fault, or only completed after a
    >>> replacement
    >>> was obtained. Since reviews are often done when an item is first released,
    >>> or even before, it is often unknown at that stage whether the fault is
    >>> common, or will be fixed before general release. As always, advertising
    >>> revenue will generally determine how the reviewer responds to the
    >>> liklihood
    >>> of a serious design fault.

    >>
    >> }But where they one-off quality control faults, or were they more
    >> }widespread design or production flaws?
    >>
    >> Most reviewers are not technically competent to make that decision,
    >> especially with only one sample to examine. IF they obtain a replacement
    >> with the same fault, they should report the liklihood of a design fault, but
    >> as I said, that often depends on their relationship with the manufacturers
    >> advertising department. Publication deadlines usually mean they don't
    >> thoroughly test in any case, and rarely test more than one sample.
    >>
    >> Trevor.

    >
    > I don't buy more than one sample yet I've seen some of the problems
    > others have. Case in point, dead pixels in a couple of D90's. What
    > are the odds? Also, the focus issue in a D7000. So if a problem
    > (Example, the Leica M8 IR problem) is widespread enough, it becomes
    > more likely a reviewer would see it than not, unless they simply
    > ignore it.


    Thom Hogan is a professional reviewer. Read his review of the Nikon D3X.
    It isn't for you.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Author Tarun Tyagi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    688
    Author Tarun Tyagi
    Dec 29, 2004
  2. Kristopher Johnson

    Re: Has anybody noticed...

    Kristopher Johnson, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    896
    Shanmuga Raja
    Jul 20, 2003
  3. John S

    Re: Has anybody noticed...

    John S, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    859
    John S
    Jul 19, 2003
  4. Hemal Desai

    Has anybody noticed...

    Hemal Desai, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,329
    Fool4vb
    Jul 21, 2003
  5. Susan

    Has anyone else noticed...

    Susan, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    375
    Thierry DEMAN [MVP]
    Jan 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page