Consumer Reports, Fuji, etc

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Vic Dura, Jun 8, 2005.

  1. Vic Dura

    Vic Dura Guest

    I just noticed a large feature article "Complete Digital Photo Guide"
    in the 7/05 issue of Consumer Reports. They have recommendations for
    three groups of digital enthusiasts: Casual, Serious and Advanced.

    I'm wondering why anyone who is considered an "advanced" (or even
    "serious") digital photo enthusiast would seriously consider the
    opinions of CR? Their forte is washing machines, refrigerators and
    the like. Digital photo for serious or advanced users? I don't think
    so.
     
    Vic Dura, Jun 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Vic Dura

    ASAAR Guest

    Perhaps you should read CR more often if you think that digital
    photography is not adequate for serious or advanced users. While
    their opinions don't always match mine, their opinions are provided
    to enlighten, and as food for thought, not as troll bait.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Vic Dura

    Vic Dura Guest

    On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:05:03 -0400, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
    I think digital photography is very adequate for the needs of serious
    or advanced users. I'm just wondering how many serious or advanced
    users would attach much weight to CR vs. the more specialized
    information sources.
     
    Vic Dura, Jun 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Vic Dura

    ASAAR Guest

    Ok, the clarification of what you intended vs. what you actually
    said is much more reasonable. Most CR readers will fit in the
    Casual category, but there's value in providing information about
    what Serious and Advanced users might prefer using. Many or most
    Casual users might only be familiar with the limited selection of
    lower end cameras available in stores such as Staples and (to name a
    local chain) P. C. Richard. After being made aware of the
    advantages that more sophisticated cameras provide, they don't have
    to take the advice of CR, but are free to then check out the more
    specialized photography magazines, or even browse the web, to learn
    more and get different perspectives. Presumably, the Serious and
    Advanced users wouldn't worry about whether they should give much
    weight to most of what CR has to say. If they don't already know
    most of it beforehand, they don't deserve to wear either of the
    "Serious" or "Advanced", don't you think?

    Overall, that CR rates cameras in addition to "washing machines,
    refrigerators and the like" is a good thing even for Serious and
    Advanced users. They can judge CR's views on cameras for
    themselves, and depending on how much they agree or disagree, use
    that as a basis for trusting CR's views on items (such as washing
    machines, refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners, lawn mowers,
    etc.) that they may know little about. Just as is too often the
    case with computers and VCRs, there may be many pre-teen boys and
    girls having no real prior knowledge of photography, that pick up an
    issue of CR and within an hour know more about the subject than
    their parents. And some of them may eventually go on to become
    Serious or Advanced camera geeks themselves. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 9, 2005
    #4
  5. I assume you are kidding us?
     
    Robert Morrisette, Jun 9, 2005
    #5
  6. Vic Dura

    Vic Dura Guest

    No sir, not at all. I've always thought of CR's reviews of digital
    photo (and computer) equipment as being simplistic; i.e. useful for
    casual users, but not particularly useful to advanced or serious
    users. That's my opinion and I was wondering what others thought. It
    appears that at least some of the folks in this NG consider CR's
    reviews to be of more value than I do. That's what I wanted to know.
     
    Vic Dura, Jun 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Vic Dura

    Charles Guest

    I have found CR's reviews somewhat helpfull on many products because
    they contain a lot of information. However I don't give their ratings
    with much value on many products. With cameras they don't rate them for
    the features enthusiasts consider most important. They rate them for
    the features practical consumers looking for good value would look at.
    That would be me for a dishwasher but not me for a camera.
     
    Charles, Jun 9, 2005
    #7
  8. Vic Dura

    Hi There Guest

    I've never trusted CR since a few years ago when I read their report on the
    current crop of VCR's. Being in the industry at the time I was interested in
    seeing the results. They posted wildly different results for different
    models which in reality were all the same model made by Matsushita under
    different brand names. I can't remember the details but two of the brands,
    Panasonic and Quasar, were Matsushita house brands, The others were made
    under contract for other consumer electronics distributors.
     
    Hi There, Jun 9, 2005
    #8
  9. And they actually understand statistical sampling, and the importance
    of getting their samples through normal retail channels rather than
    from a dealer that *knows* it's going to CR for testing.

    Still, I *haven't* found their photographic advice very useful
    personally, and feel that I was somewhat lead astray by them when I
    bought my very first SLR back in 1969 (the Miranda Sensorex wasn't a
    *bad* camera, but I would have been MUCH better served with a Pentax
    Spotmatic or a Nikormat, in hindsight). At the time I was a novice, I
    didn't know any better. But I thought I was headed for being a
    serious amateur photographer, and I turned out to be right (I didn't
    say *good* :)).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 9, 2005
    #9
  10. Hi There wrote:
    []
    But might not the wildly different also imply that the quality control on
    those models was very bad, and that no two were setup the same?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 9, 2005
    #10
  11. Vic Dura

    Vic Dura Guest

    "starting point" is a good way to put it. I just thought it
    incongruous to include sets of recommendations for "serious" and
    "advanced" (S/A) users when I didn't consider that such users would be
    using their publication for decision making. I just don't see the S/A
    user of photo/computer equipment as being able to find useful info in
    CR. Not that there is anything wrong with CR, I too think they do a
    great job in providing the novice, casual or uninformed consumer the
    info he needs to make a selection.

    For example if I needed to buy a refrigerator, I would be doing so as
    an uninformed consumer. I'm not a S/A user of refrigerators and I
    wouldn't want to put in the time to become one. In that case CR's info
    would be very helpful. However, if I was a refrigerator repair person,
    I doubt if I would look to CR.

    So, I was wondering how many S/A digital photo users use CR to make
    their picks. Apparently, more than I had thought.
     
    Vic Dura, Jun 9, 2005
    #11
  12. Vic Dura

    Hi There Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    I asked a Matsushita executive about this. He was in Canada as the Canadian
    manager of Panasonic. His previous post was in a VCR factory. He said the
    only difference was in the amount of items tested for quality control. With
    more expensive brands they tested more often for flaws, i.e. every
    thousandth one rather than every five thousandth or whatever. He did say
    they didn't find any statistically significant difference in the number of
    defective products. If something had gone wrong on the production line it
    potentially would take longer to find out with the cheaper brands so more
    defective product may have made it into the supply chain but they had so few
    problems that in reality it made no difference that they could detect. There
    was no difference in the way the VCRs were constructed other than the
    outside case. The report had differences in quality of recording and display
    rather than factory defects. He may have been feeding me some spin. I have
    no way of confirming it. It did make me take CR with a grain of salt
    afterwards.
     
    Hi There, Jun 9, 2005
    #12
  13. Hi There wrote:
    []
    Thanks for that - it confirms my own understanding of the branding
    process.

    I find that you need to take /any/ report with a pinch of salt - what
    about the well-known digital photography review site where the minimum
    rating is "above average"? However, knowing that, you can better
    interpret the same site's "Recommended" and "Highly recommended" ratings.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Vic Dura

    Ton Maas Guest

    The problem remains that consumer magazines seem peculiarly able to come
    up with criteria that experienced users find rather less relevant. A
    good example is the comparative test a Dutch version of CR devoted some
    years ago between personal computers. An Apple Mac (don't remember which
    specific model) was criticized by them for not being able to run MS
    Windows :)

    Ton
     
    Ton Maas, Jun 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Ton Maas wrote:
    []
    Although with Apple moving to the X86 platform, perhaps that criticism
    will not be true at some time in the future?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 12, 2005
    #15
  16. Vic Dura

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And obviously one questionable report make all the other reports bad.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 12, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.