Re: Canon Reliability

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ray Fischer, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    dredangler <> 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.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jun 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On 12 Jun 2009 01:27:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    <4a31aef0$0$1633$>:

    >dredangler <> 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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Navas wrote:
    > On 12 Jun 2009 01:27:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    > <4a31aef0$0$1633$>:
    >
    >> dredangler <> 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.


    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
    John McWilliams, Jun 12, 2009
    #3
  4. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    >On 12 Jun 2009 01:27:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    >>dredangler <> 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.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jun 12, 2009
    #4
  5. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On 12 Jun 2009 05:18:11 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    <4a31e513$0$1630$>:

    >John Navas <> wrote:
    >>On 12 Jun 2009 01:27:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    >>>dredangler <> 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, which is common, and why branding is such a big
    factor in the market.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #5
  6. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    >>John Navas <> wrote:
    >>> (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    >>>>dredangler <> 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
    Ray Fischer, Jun 12, 2009
    #6
  7. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Stephen Henning <> 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.
    nospam, Jun 12, 2009
    #7
  8. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> 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.
    nospam, Jun 12, 2009
    #8
  9. nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    > <> 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.


    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
    John McWilliams, Jun 12, 2009
    #9
  10. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On 12 Jun 2009 07:06:22 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
    <4a31fe6e$0$1629$>:

    >John Navas <> 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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #10
  11. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:57:18 -0400, Stephen Henning <>
    wrote in <>:

    > (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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #11
  12. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:49:37 -0400, nospam <> wrote
    in <120620090949370640%>:

    >In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    ><> 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.


    Worse, it's a self-selected sample from a non-representative universe
    (CR subscribers).

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #12
  13. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:55:41 -0700, John McWilliams <>
    wrote in <h0tq9k$ff5$-september.org>:

    >nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    >> <> 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.

    >
    >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.


    You can't make that assumption unless you can show the sample to be
    representative of the universe, which it clearly isn't.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #13
  14. John Navas wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:55:41 -0700, John McWilliams <>
    > wrote in <h0tq9k$ff5$-september.org>:>> nospam wrote:


    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 12, 2009
    #14
  15. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams <>
    wrote in <h0u55i$c3k$-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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #15
  16. John Navas wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams <>
    > wrote in <h0u55i$c3k$-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 McWilliams, Jun 12, 2009
    #16
  17. Ray Fischer

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:18:58 -0700, John McWilliams <>
    wrote in <h0u9n2$sfk$-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.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
    John Navas, Jun 12, 2009
    #17
  18. Ray Fischer

    Doug Jewell Guest

    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
    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, Jun 12, 2009
    #18
  19. Ray Fischer

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Stephen Henning wrote:
    > (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.
    >

    Those failure rates would be consistent with my experience
    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, Jun 12, 2009
    #19
  20. Ray Fischer

    Doug Jewell Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:18:58 -0700, John McWilliams <>
    > wrote in <h0u9n2$sfk$-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.
    >

    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.

    --
    Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
    Doug Jewell, Jun 12, 2009
    #20
    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. Anxious Man

    Reliability of Mozilla Backup

    Anxious Man, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
    Anxious Man
    Jan 22, 2004
  2. Ned Hart
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,550
    Hansang Bae
    Jun 16, 2004
  3. Fred Atkinson

    Reliability of Provider

    Fred Atkinson, Jul 23, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    393
    Fred Atkinson
    Jul 23, 2005
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Canon Digital Rebel: Reliability Question

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jan 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    328
    Matt Ion
    Jan 1, 2005
  5. michael adams

    Re: Canon Reliability

    michael adams, Jun 11, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    328
    John Navas
    Jun 12, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page