Actually, I hadn't felt the thread become 'unpleasant' until the Resident Rottweiler bit again.
I, for one, am far from expert on these matters and am rapidly coming to the conclusion that many other people are keeping me company without being aware of it. Indeed, I am starting to believe that there is probably much lack of definitive information or understanding of this topic that extends right up to camera manufacturers. How else to account for some of the problems that new cameras exhibit?
I think that part of the problem is that we are stepping into a world where some willingly accept being misled, in the sense of false claims - an acceptance of ad-speak, shall we say - which is what I see underlying the posted replies of 'it gives great prints, so it doesn't matter' which, to me, is nothing more than the same thing reflected in the willing acceptance of poor quality control or false claims for zoom lens performance. I'm sorry, but I think that companies should indeed be held to the letter of their published claims; why should we be slipping into this easy belief that it isn't important if exaggerated claims are made for a product? It darn well does matter; slippery slopes are just that. Look around us all at the world of newspapers, television and politics, never mind marketing, and you would be blind to miss the fact that we are being conned every minute of the day; this is acceptable? Laissez-faire is a dangerous attitude.
Rob C
