donald (07/05/82)
I would like to suggest some guidelines for posting articles to net.rec.photo.
Requests for technical information should really be answered by mail rather
than posting news, unless the information is of general interest. I suspect
most people don't really want to know that the XYZ Super Reflex requires
two 1.5v silver oxide cells to work. On the other hand, they might be in-
terested in the new XYZ 6mm-1000mm f/1.0 zoom lens. The recent flurry of
articles on novice cameras bears this out.
Please keep unsubstantiated statements about various brands' reliability
off the net. They only start or add to vicious rumours.
Statements like "I know someone who owns the XYZ Super Reflex and it's a
real dog" will always be countered by someone who replies "I own an XYZ
Super Reflex and it's given me 5 years of perfect service".
Everybody knows that nonrandom samples of size n<5 are not really
significant, no matter how "reliable" your sources are.
I know people that have had their Leicas break down-- so what?
Silly rumours abound in the photo trade ("I know who REALLY makes Vivitar's
lenses..."); let's not help spread 'em.
Concerning Jon Shapiro's concern about personal insults in articles: I agree,
but I don't think that the novice cameras debacle got that bad. You should
see some of the backbiting that goes on in net.misc or net.followup!
Most of the articles in question merely attempted to give another (albeit
heated) opinion, in response to somewhat questionable claims.
Remember though, calling a photographer's pet camera "unreliable" or
"overpriced" in public is tantamount to calling his sister a horse.
Don Chan