Steve Spencer Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Many amateurs not only spend more money on camera gear but also get to shoot a lot more than typical professional photographers (who also have to market the work, sell it, work with customers etc.).
Even if you never had equipment malfunction with Nikon gear, some of us have had it happen to us, and in my opinion, an important quality metric is the worst sample that gets to customer hands. And people have the right to voice their experiences, good and bad. Otherwise manufacturers get very arrogant and stop caring about the customers.
If the worst sample to get to customers was an important metric, it would drive up prices substantially. Every camera would need to be tested thoroughly to make sure no bad cameras slipped through. I prefer the current system in which cameras are offered at a substantially lower price, a few bad cameras make it to market, and companies replace those bad cameras under warranty. No system is perfect, but under the current system prices are lower and the devil is in the details about how common bad cameras are and how well camera makers respond to warranty. claims. As long as bad cameras are pretty rare (and the company still has a financial incentive to make such bad camera rare--camera replaced under warranty have to be an added expense), and warranty service is good, I am good with the current system. I don't want zero chance of a bad camera at a much higher price. I want a lower price with a very low chance of a bad camera and if I get unlucky I want the company to replace/repair the camera quickly without much hassle.
|