Re: Canon Reliability
- From: John Navas <spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:30:39 -0700
On 12 Jun 2009 07:06:22 GMT, rfischer@xxxxxxxxx (Ray Fischer) wrote in
<4a31fe6e$0$1629$742ec2ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
John Navas <spamfilter1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Canon Reliability
- From: Ray Fischer
- Re: Canon Reliability
- From: Doug Jewell
- Re: Canon Reliability
- References:
- Canon Reliability
- From: dredangler
- Re: Canon Reliability
- From: John Navas
- Re: Canon Reliability
- From: Ray Fischer
- Re: Canon Reliability
- From: John Navas
- Re: Canon Reliability
- From: Ray Fischer
- Canon Reliability
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon Reliability
- Next by Date: Re: Canon Reliability
- Previous by thread: Re: Canon Reliability
- Next by thread: Re: Canon Reliability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|