@pawl wrote:
@UnionStation wrote:
I think you might've misunderstood me, pawl. Professional reviewers often buy devices off the shelf to guarantee they are getting exactly what customers get. Companies frequently give known reviewers prototype units with firmware/software/hardware that never makes its way to consumers. There' no guarantee the firmware Gordon gets will be the same anyone else will see. That's no conspiracy theory - that's fact.
My statement that it may take Gordon some time to revisit the camera was based on that earlier posting, part of which you reposted: Gordon said: "I'm very curious too, but again it could be a couple of weeks before I can re-evaluate this." He's already reviewed this camera and likely has plenty of other work to do before giving a repaired camera a second chance.
I admit I had no idea that such a thing was common, UnionStation. I can understand why it would benefit a company in_the_short_term to provide [in this case] a camera that is non-stock and somehow better than what the public will purchase, but doesn't that invite trouble with consumers down the line? Seems like a bad idea, or at least not very farsighted. But, like I said, I'm not in this business, so my knowledge is **bleep** close to zip. And you'd be quick to point out that Canon is not too bright in their CR department.
I take issue, however, when you use the term "rigged" and suggest that Laing is somehow a willing knowing party (assuming the man is as knowledgable of this scheming as you). By deduction, you're suggesting Laing is a dupe? Is Canon buttering his bread?
And besides, Gordon Laing does have a vested interest in this, since (as you said) his interest in (read, reputation as a reviewer relies on) fair and thorough reporting. I'm sure he understands it would be remiss of him to drop the ball on this one. I'd not suggest otherwise, not knowing the man personally.
Gordon did state that the camera he reviewed was one that he purchased, not one that was provided by Canon. He has also stated that he is suspicious that the fix only involves a firmware update in that he recorded the camera serial number before it was sent in to make sure he got the same serial number camera returned. He also stated in his updated review that "Canon contacted me following my test and claims it has fixed the battery issue with a firmware update which should already be applied to all new samples." The vendors must have had quite an inventory of bad cameras since people who have purchased a sx280 since the review and posted here got another bad sx280.
Personally, I have a prepaid return to return to the vendor and also a prepaid label to return to Canon in Irvine, CA. If no one posts anything positive concerning repair/replacement of their defective camera in the next 3-4 days, it will be returned to the vendor and Canon can find other valued customers to extend their award winning service.
