Funny this year how Amazon seems to more often have the newer stuff in stock--and I mean "Sold by Amazon." One example would be the Rf 100-500mm, consistently in stock for months now, while other stores have been showing backordered during the same time.
Have we ever had a thread about "binning"? Is it just voodoo superstition to wonder if the top merchants dedicated to photography, and having been loyal Canon authorized-dealers for decades, might get batches of lenses and bodies that perform slightly better in the QC tests coming off the assembly lines?
It is hard for me to completely shake the feeling that what our favorite big New York (and other!) camera shops sell is somehow cherry-picked. (And of course this is so easy to "confirm" with one or two anecdotes--but no solid statistical data. In other words, I get one sub-par item from the Big River, and I believe they are selling second-tier stuff. That ain't scientific at all!)
One comparison I have is computer monitors: There was a time when a strong belief existed online that Dell-direct sold better performing monitors than those sold at online retailers. Many customer-reviews and forum preachers were sure Dell cherry-picked what they sold directly, and backed up such claims with the fact that Dell was giving an extra year of warranty for their direct-sale monitors.
Or, has anybody else had the experience of researching flat-panel TV's and reading many places that certain production codes were associated with significantly better image-quality? One variation of this was a belief that early production runs used better displays, and then once a model had been well received and started selling well, a bit of bait and switch would take place, with a different display being used in the chassis, one that was close but slightly inferior. That kind of talk made me roll my eyes...
With Canon, I believe we know that their topline gear is made and assembled in Japan. I would not even imagine that the parts they use are ever anything lesser in quality to what was originally used in the first production runs. But I can imagine--and I do mean IMAGINE--that some copies of lenses test sharper than others. The best go to store A, B, and C, while the ones that are in-spec but not the best go to, well, behemoths. Again, this is PURE SPECULATION, just Sunday morning rumination to go with my coffee.
(RUMORS site, right?)
I'd imagine there is a range of readers here going from thinking such ideas about Canon/Nikon/Sony gear are just nuts to being pretty sure there is something to it.
Have we ever had a thread about "binning"? Is it just voodoo superstition to wonder if the top merchants dedicated to photography, and having been loyal Canon authorized-dealers for decades, might get batches of lenses and bodies that perform slightly better in the QC tests coming off the assembly lines?
It is hard for me to completely shake the feeling that what our favorite big New York (and other!) camera shops sell is somehow cherry-picked. (And of course this is so easy to "confirm" with one or two anecdotes--but no solid statistical data. In other words, I get one sub-par item from the Big River, and I believe they are selling second-tier stuff. That ain't scientific at all!)
One comparison I have is computer monitors: There was a time when a strong belief existed online that Dell-direct sold better performing monitors than those sold at online retailers. Many customer-reviews and forum preachers were sure Dell cherry-picked what they sold directly, and backed up such claims with the fact that Dell was giving an extra year of warranty for their direct-sale monitors.
Or, has anybody else had the experience of researching flat-panel TV's and reading many places that certain production codes were associated with significantly better image-quality? One variation of this was a belief that early production runs used better displays, and then once a model had been well received and started selling well, a bit of bait and switch would take place, with a different display being used in the chassis, one that was close but slightly inferior. That kind of talk made me roll my eyes...
With Canon, I believe we know that their topline gear is made and assembled in Japan. I would not even imagine that the parts they use are ever anything lesser in quality to what was originally used in the first production runs. But I can imagine--and I do mean IMAGINE--that some copies of lenses test sharper than others. The best go to store A, B, and C, while the ones that are in-spec but not the best go to, well, behemoths. Again, this is PURE SPECULATION, just Sunday morning rumination to go with my coffee.
(RUMORS site, right?)
I'd imagine there is a range of readers here going from thinking such ideas about Canon/Nikon/Sony gear are just nuts to being pretty sure there is something to it.
Last edited: