Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Consumer Reports, Fuji, etc

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 3:58:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.

More about : consumer reports fuji

Anonymous
June 8, 2005 3:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:58:05 -0500, Vic Dura
<vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:

>I'm wondering why anyone who is considered an "advanced" (or even
>"serious") digital photo enthusiast would seriously consider the
>opinions of CR?

Since they are unbiased in there opinions for one. That there
staff are made up of tech people, not repair men, and I am sure some
of them are into photography.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:05:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:58:05 -0500, Vic Dura wrote:

> 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.

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:05:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:05:03 -0400, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
Consumer Reports, Fuji, etc ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:58:05 -0500, Vic Dura wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps you should read CR more often if you think that digital
>photography is not adequate for serious or advanced users.

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.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 10:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:05:32 -0500, Vic Dura
<vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:

>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.

More so, since CR does NOT except ads from anyone. There view
is unbias.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 11:08:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:05:32 -0500, Vic Dura wrote:

>>> They have recommendations for three groups of digital
>>> enthusiasts: Casual, Serious and Advanced.
>>> . . .
>>> Digital photo for serious or advanced users? I don't think
>>> so.
>>
>> Perhaps you should read CR more often if you think that digital
>>photography is not adequate for serious or advanced users.
>
> 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.

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. :) 
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:10:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon <oldsalt@usintouch.com> writes:

> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:58:05 -0500, Vic Dura
> <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering why anyone who is considered an "advanced" (or even
>>"serious") digital photo enthusiast would seriously consider the
>>opinions of CR?
>
> Since they are unbiased in there opinions for one. That there
> staff are made up of tech people, not repair men, and I am sure some
> of them are into photography.

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, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:31:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Vic Dura wrote:
> 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.
>

I used to think this way about CR ("how cane a magazine that tests
toothpaste do anything with any technology items")....then I started
subscribing to them. The more I have read them, the more I am convinced
that they have some good staff to handle this stuff. The test staff are
usualy experts in whatever field they are testing. Quite often their
recommendations line up very well with what I see in the more
"dedicated" magazines (PCMag, Pop Photo, Peterson's Photgraphy, PCWorld)
that I also subscribe to.

Mike T
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Vic Dura" <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:s38ea1hpu18smmdkneh2birfkh1nqeui80@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
I assume you are kidding us?
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 3:58:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:58:19 GMT, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
Consumer Reports, Fuji, etc "Robert Morrisette"
<writer77@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Vic Dura" <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote in message
>news:s38ea1hpu18smmdkneh2birfkh1nqeui80@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>>
>I assume you are kidding us?
>

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.


--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
June 9, 2005 3:58:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rs3fa1dc1n3m7f5evan1ltj721umpeac65@4ax.com>, Vic Dura
<vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:

> 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.

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 5:43:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:10:44 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Still, I *haven't* found their photographic advice very useful
>personally,

Never said what they write is very deep, but for an over all
round up of what's out there (not that check out every single one)
it's a good starting point.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:05:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Vic Dura" <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:s38ea1hpu18smmdkneh2birfkh1nqeui80@4ax.com...
>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.
>

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:56:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:43:44 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
Consumer Reports, Fuji, etc Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon
<oldsalt@usintouch.com> wrote:

> Never said what they write is very deep, but for an over all
>round up of what's out there (not that check out every single one)
>it's a good starting point.

"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.

--
To reply to me directly, remove the CLUTTER from my email address.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 10:42:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon <oldsalt@usintouch.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:58:05 -0500, Vic Dura
> > <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm wondering why anyone who is considered an "advanced" (or even
> >>"serious") digital photo enthusiast would seriously consider the
> >>opinions of CR?
> >
> > Since they are unbiased in there opinions for one. That there
> > staff are made up of tech people, not repair men, and I am sure some
> > of them are into photography.
>
> 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* :-)).
> --

Actually, IMO the Miranda Sensorex was a serious POS. The one I bought
lasted one roll of film and I had a major battle to warranty it. Ended
up with a new Canon F1 (mechanical) that I used for about 15 years
without a hitch.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 11:40:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi There wrote:
[]
> 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.

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
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 8:02:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:9oSpe.47642$G8.29880@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi There wrote:
> []
>> 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.
>
> 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
>

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.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:49:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi There wrote:
[]
> 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.

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
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 5:20:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Vic Dura <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:43:44 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re:
> Consumer Reports, Fuji, etc Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon
> <oldsalt@usintouch.com> wrote:
>
> > Never said what they write is very deep, but for an over all
> >round up of what's out there (not that check out every single one)
> >it's a good starting point.
>
> "starting point" is a good way to put it.

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
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 5:20:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ton Maas wrote:
[]
> 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 :-)

Although with Apple moving to the X86 platform, perhaps that criticism
will not be true at some time in the future?

David
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 10:34:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi There <gt4NOSPAMdatsun@h*o*t*m*a*i*l.com> wrote:
>"Vic Dura" <vpdura@CLUTTERhiwaay.net> wrote in message
>>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.
>>
>
>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.

And obviously one questionable report make all the other reports bad.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
!