Luke Kaven

Luke Kaven

Lives in United States New York, United States
Works as a Researcher/educator, music producer, photographer
Has a website at http://www.lukekaven.com
Joined on Mar 11, 2004
About me:

Researcher/ Educator
President at Smalls Records | www.smallsrecords.com
Featured artist in the HDRI Handbook by Christian Bloch (2nd Ed)

Comments

Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

You did say that Barbie Dream House sensor was acceptable as a substitute. Are you going to stick by that? No problem for Samsung?

Since you decided to argue the case in principle, you handed me the reductio ad absurdum I was after.

In practice, as I said before, I'm sure the Samsung sensor is fine. The Barbie sensor, not.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

Since you rigged the case this way, it makes my point all the better.

If you buy a Samsung phone after deciding to buy based on reading a review of the phone as The Best Cameraphone Made in virtue of its having the Hero sensor, and it arrives with a Barbie Dream House sensor, there is a problem. We're not talking about pistons here.

If review units were cherry-picked from the stock of Hero sensors instead of Barbie Dream House sensors, there is a problem. There is of course no legal excuse in saying that manufacturers do this all the time.

The only reason consumers have not sued Apple on a number of occasions has more to do with the fact that they are the wealthiest corporation on planet earth, with enough lawyers to crush most any plaintiff like a cockroach. Besides, it would require a class action suit.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

If you have factual knowledge to contribute, then contribute it. Your argument from authority does not contribute much, except as invective. Since you're a scientist, I hoped for better from you.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2015 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

[You are too free with your personal invective; this is just a discussion.]

1- piston is not to truck as camera is to phone. Nobody ever reviewed a truck as #1 best truck due to the pistons it used. However, the camera is in many cases the reason why both reviewers recommend a phone (e.g., DPReview), and why consumers buy it.

2 - Nobody ever felt they had to review a truck again because the pistons were found to be from a different supplier. DPR is reviewing the phone again.

3 - There was never a question about whether Ford cherry-picked a truck to send to reviewers based on what pistons it has. If Samsung was found to cherry-pick units to send to reviewers in order to get the highest reviews, they will have a headache. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.

4 - I have no personal stake. Samsung makes great cameras, and is perhaps the most innovative company out there in the camera market.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2015 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

So DPReview has nothing better to do on a slow news day so they decide they are obliged to /retest the phone/ for no reason at all?

So how far do the "published specs" pertaining to the sensor go? Number of pixels? Anything else?

And you're saying they could, for instance, substitute the worst camera module made so long as it has the same number of pixels? And after the camera earned the coveted number one review spot based on the hero sensor, it's ok if you get the dog sensor when you actually buy it?

In principle, no they can't. In practice, the dog sensor might be close enough. However, if anyone at Samsung ever said "let's send the good one to the reviewers", then they should expect problems.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

terryoregon: "You can expect a thousand lawyers to be suiting up for this one . . ."

There is no law against using multiple vendors. I worked for a medical device company for 22 years. Almost every component we used had two suppliers. This was merely a precaution against one supplier going down (for any reason) - then shutting down production. Not once in 22 years did a customer care which source we used for our components. What they cared about was delays in getting their order.

"full disclosure" would be an endeavor in the ridiculous. Which components would you list? Some - all? That could easily be a thousand parts or more. Supplier lists change constantly.

When did commonsense ever stand in the way of a lawyer trying to make money?

Anyway, it isn't multiple vendors alone at issue here. The issue is complicated by further questions, such as whether the units sent for review were cherry-picked, and whether people bought the phone with the expectation that, after reading the reviews, they were getting the top-rated camera phone on the market today.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

Tell DPReview that. DPReview editors seemed to think it was important enough to write a front page story and open it up for comments, didn't they? Do you think that is any indication of what the response across the industry is going to be?

Since you didn't understand my "for better or worse" remark, it is intended to indicate that I don't favor any one kind of action or another. But my opinions never stopped a lawyer from trying to make a million.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

Luke Kaven: Samsung isn't off the hook by saying that their "specifications" are generic enough that both camera modules satisfy it.

The question here is whether reviews, based on the superior camera module, induce false consumer expectations of quality, used as incentive to buy, when the final product may or may not match those expectations. Would the inferior camera module have earned a number 1 rank in the reviews or merely a number 2 or 3?

Keep firmly in mind here: it doesn't matter whether you or I care one way or another. For better or worse, you can expect a thousand lawyers to be suiting up for this one as we type.

If Samsung cherry-picked the cameras that they sent to reviewers, it would be a serious problem.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 21:04 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

So our respective bets are down, and we will watch and see what transpires. Meet you back here later.

I should say though that I don't know of any legal principle of "you got what you paid for".

I think the published specs probably do not distinguish between the best camera module made, and the worst, so long as they have the same general specifications. But I think that consumers who feel they were misled by reviews to expect that they were getting the best camera module made would feel cheated if they got the worst, regardless of what "the specs" say. That's the reductio ad absurdum argument anyway.

Whether there is an actual suit or not partly depends upon whose monied interests are at stake. But do you honestly think that lawyers are not going over this one with a fine-toothed comb?

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: If you switch over to DPR's report about Sony supplying 40% of all sensors now, you'll find the reason for this.

This article mentions that after Sony inked the iPhone6 contract, it is unable to supply enough sensors to other vendors, including HTC, Samsung and others. It was in the news already, folks ...

BTW, it ethically absolutely correct to use multiple sources for a consumer procduct for anything but a products core component. So, for a car you can vary windshiled manufacturers but not the engine. And for a smart phone, you can of course vary the camera module supplier. But the same wouldn't apply to a system camera.

Ex hypothesi: The superior sensor earns a number 1 ranking in reviews. The inferior sensor earns a number 5 ranking. The consumer buys the camera based on expectations in the review of the superior sensor only to find the inferior sensor.

Manufacturer argues that its specifications are so generic as to cover both sensors. Not good enough. The manufacturer helped itself to the benefits of heightened consumer expectations of quality, which turned out to be false (in cases where the inferior sensor was used).

For better or worse, that is sufficient grounds for a law suit, regardless of the problems in the supply chain. Samsung would be obliged to disclose to reviewers that not all units can be expected to perform equally.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 13:49 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: 99.99% of consumer don't care if the S6 comes with a Sony or Samsung sensor just like other components just as long as it has the same specs (size, mp etc).

Unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, it does matter, no matter how little we might care about it.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 13:40 UTC

Samsung isn't off the hook by saying that their "specifications" are generic enough that both camera modules satisfy it.

The question here is whether reviews, based on the superior camera module, induce false consumer expectations of quality, used as incentive to buy, when the final product may or may not match those expectations. Would the inferior camera module have earned a number 1 rank in the reviews or merely a number 2 or 3?

Keep firmly in mind here: it doesn't matter whether you or I care one way or another. For better or worse, you can expect a thousand lawyers to be suiting up for this one as we type.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 13:39 UTC as 17th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

dgeugene1: Why would dpreview publish this unless it was meant as satire? Very sad.

It was explicitly tagged as "humor" as you can see above. And what else would it be?

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

jon404: ***** Five-Star Article!
Thanks, Richard. Your writing is so clear and informative... VERY much appreciated.

This article continues a trend favoring editorial quality in the last couple of years. I especially appreciate the fact that in this case you did not attempt to oversimplify a subtle scientific and technical issue, and in doing so, you've done a great service to your readers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 10:54 UTC
On ISO400_WH_26 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

DPR! You got some mojo going with some of those B&W portraits. You should let your hair down more often in the samples galleries!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 20:52 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Battersea: Homage? Seems the correct word should be parody.

Those mischievous rapscallions!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 06:48 UTC
On Nikon D5500 Review preview (359 comments in total)

Quick spelling catch in the conclusion section: "comprises" -> "compromises"

"While there were certainly comprises made to separate the D5500 from the D7200, most users in the former's target audience should be able to 'get by' without them. "

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 20:01 UTC as 79th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon D7200 real-world samples gallery posted article (145 comments in total)

The lack of fixed pattern noise appears to be a noticeable improvement over the D7100, as observed in the ISO12800 shot. That will give this camera an edge.

The presence of thermal noise at high gain settings (blueish-magenta cast, with local hot spots) is still noticeable, but that's not a surprise. All the Sony-type sensors have this problem to some extent.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 19:43 UTC as 10th comment
On Adorama launches Flashpoint Ring Li-On 400ws ringflash article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

CanonKen: Isn't this site a front for Amazon?

Of course, Simon; I realize that. My somewhat facetious comment wasn't directed towards you or site policy.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2015 at 17:53 UTC
On Adorama launches Flashpoint Ring Li-On 400ws ringflash article (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

CanonKen: Isn't this site a front for Amazon?

Could hurt sales of the Amazon-brand flashes.

PS -- Adorama sells Flashpoint through Amazon as well.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2015 at 06:19 UTC
Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »