This will be one of many posts on this subject, I am sure. Today’s post has to do with the hotter-than-burning-coal Fujifilm X100 camera that is selling for ~1500 bucks on ebay now. Thing is, there is a lot of hype generated for this camera, and one of my favorite review sites, has recently posted a series of reviews on this camera. The latest one to date, on May 11th, mentions a list of problems with the camera, and yet valiantly defends the shortcomings of the camera. Every problem becomes a non-issue, it seems. And although the author purports to base this on real-world experience, I think that only time will tell if these little niggling problems will become major annoyances in the future. In fact, the “review/defense” smacks of rationalization. I totally understand that, in moment of excitement and enamored stupor, one can easily forgive these little problems. Maybe some will even learn to love these quirks. Well, so I posted, in the comments section, that I predict that the author will sell the camera within 3 months. Surprisingly, the comment was not published. I thought it might be because it might have read (unintentionally) like I was deliberately annoying him (I wasn’t).
Anyway, a few minutes ago, I saw an ad selling the X100 on fredmiranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1008717) which states that the camera was indeed the same one the reviewer had used in the review (that the seller had bought it from the author). Now, maybe he had multiple copies of the X100, and if so, good for him. However, I cannot help but feel like this might be some sort of sponsorship deal that disallows him from nay-saying the camera. In fact, I found it curious that he continues to peddle the camera, even as he sold the camera already. Again, I want to stress that this is speculation, and I fully respect the author’s integrity. I just wonder if this might in fact be some sort of legal issue for him. In any case, I think that if true, this is a pretty crazy situation — not new, but it seems like it would be nice if we have a full disclosure from reviewers about their biases.
Food for thought.
Edit at 12 midnight, 13th May: The author has graciously replied to my query and confirmed that he has multiple copies of the camera. Guess that clears up the conspiracy theories in my head!!! 😀
Edit on 14th May 2011: Something suspicious here — the ad disappeared, and also, another person (Julian) on the reviewer’s website asked about the same thing, and the author basically snapped at Julian. Curioser and curioser.