What will be the standard for judging used mirrorless cameras?

*Scruffy* wrote in post #19458342
It should probably also separate by Brand and Shutter make/model, and where available have data for what the shutter is rated or warrantied for.

Otherwise having them all together is akin to comparing a kit lens with a specialty lens and applying the standard of one to the other.

I have no issue with the organization. It's easy enough to figure out by model number. It's the data itself. The data is total garbage and completely unreliable. In just a few minutes I can pretty much set the shutter reliability number to anything I want just by typing in false data.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19458346
.
Several sets of dedicated snow tires from name brands over the course of 12 years. . I'm sure that somewhere in there was the "right type".

Keep in mind that where I live, we have mountains - true mountains - to drive up and over when the roads are completely covered with snow and ice. . It aint nothing like winter driving in New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Dakota, etc., etc., etc. . Getting a car to get enough traction to go up a steep incline that is miles and miles long is a whole different issue than driving in flatlands and rolling hills and piddly little "mountains" like the Appalachians. . People who don't live in the Rockies or Cascades just don't get it.

.

You had mentioned studded snow tires, I guess I was referring to studless snow tires like the Bridgestone Blizzak or Vredestein. Plenty of YouTube videos showing their advantages over regular tires or even "snow tires" on slick surfaces like ice. I have used Blizzaks for over 15 years. No comparison to all season tires but they do wear more quickly, especially as the temps rise. These tires have save me in snow/ice conditions several times over the years, allowing me to stop or turn in situations where other drivers had little or no control at all.

duckster wrote in post #19458364
You had mentioned studded snow tires, I guess I was referring to studless snow tires like the Bridgestone Blizzak or Vredestein. Plenty of YouTube videos showing their advantages over regular tires or even "snow tires" on slick surfaces like ice. I have used Blizzaks for over 15 years. No comparison to all season tires but they do wear more quickly, especially as the temps rise. These tires have save me in snow/ice conditions several times over the years, allowing me to stop or turn in situations where other drivers had little or no control at all.

.
ALL snow tires are studless, and then you can opt to have studs installed if you want, or you can have tread lug slicing done to theoretically increase traction (which in my experience doesn't make a noticeable difference).

Most of the snow tires I have had, I never had studs installed. . Only had studs on a couple of sets. . They made no difference, no improvement at all, ever, so I stopped getting studs installed years and years ago.

Why do you seem to refuse to believe that no matter what snow tires I get, they do not and will not make much of a difference at all on my car in the conditions I drive in? . I think that you believe that your experiences driving in snow and ice with Blizzak tires is somehow transferrable to how things would go for me if I used those same Blizzak tires. . Not.

It is frustrating as hell when people insist that what has worked for them would also work for me, when everything about me and what I do is completely different. . I have little to no trouble stopping or turning on snow-covered or ice-covered roads ... because I drive very slow like a 90 year old grandma in those conditions. . I couldn't care less about a tire's ability to help me stop or turn. . That just doesn't matter and isn't important. . But I have major trouble getting enough traction for my one wheel drive car to get up long, steep grades, and this is what is too big a challenge for any tire, no matter how lauded it is.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19457265
.
I do that. . I desperately need 4 wheel drive, but I don't have a 4 wheel drive because I can't find one for $5,000 that gets 35 miles per gallon. . I also desperately need a lot of cubic feet of space in a car, but I don't have that because I can't find a BIG car or SUV that gets 35 MPG.

I have to use chains on my tires all freaking winter long because my little one wheel drive car is not good in snow and ice. . And putting chains on tires when it is cold and windy is a miserable, dirty job that I dislike.

And having all of my photography gear and camping gear and work gear completely filling the trunk and the back seat, and piled high on the front seat, sucks because it is so hard to fit another human in the car and I would like to date some girls when I am on road trips. . But again, I am forced to compromise with a small car because the nice big ones that are so much better and more comfortable don't get 35 MPG at a $5,000 or less pricetag.

I am forced to use a small car because of unfavorable economic realities, but the small cars I have driven for the past 16 years do not meet my needs well at all.

.

How about 33mpg? I owned a 2006 Subaru Forester for 3 years. On the highway with speedo indicating 115-120 klm/hr (ie, averaging 73mph) I used 8.6L/100km which is 33mpg.
I had a roof racks with a 'cage' with a bit of stuff so 35mpg is probably right on without that. It was automatic too so expect a bit better with a manual.

Like a lot of modern AWD, it drives front wheels only until slip is detected then drive is also sent to rear. Compared to a Honda CR-V with the same system, the front wheels dig a little smaller whole than the Honda before sending power to the rear.
The big advantage with the Subaru is that it just requires a very simple mod, cut into wiring loom beside gear shifter and fit a simple on-off switch. This switch turns on power to both ends.
So in slippery conditions you can have power going to both ends when you choose. Forgetting it's on would be unwise in conditions with lot's of grip.

From the driver's seat it's similar size to a corolla but the wagon body style does make gear carrying easier and you do get significantly more room.
My only gripe was that this was the last model without door window frames. So you can't fit a weather shield, which I would have liked.

There's only 1 downside IMHO. Subaru use a timing belt instead of timing chain and it's recommended to change every 100K klm (60K miles).
A mate of mine never changed his and the belt broke at 280K klm. It destroys engine as pistons hit valves...
Other than the timing belt they are reliable. As a review comparison I read years ago said of the Forester compared to competition: The Forester didn't really shine in any area, but just did everything we wanted and was not the worst at anything. I found that accurate.

Choderboy wrote in post #19458449
How about 33mpg? I owned a 2006 Subaru Forester for 3 years. On the highway with speedo indicating 115-120 klm/hr (ie, averaging 73mph) I used 8.6L/100km which is 33mpg.
I had a roof racks with a 'cage' with a bit of stuff so 35mpg is probably right on without that. It was automatic too so expect a bit better with a manual.

Like a lot of modern AWD, it drives front wheels only until slip is detected then drive is also sent to rear. Compared to a Honda CR-V with the same system, the front wheels dig a little smaller whole than the Honda before sending power to the rear.
The big advantage with the Subaru is that it just requires a very simple mod, cut into wiring loom beside gear shifter and fit a simple on-off switch. This switch turns on power to both ends.
So in slippery conditions you can have power going to both ends when you choose. Forgetting it's on would be unwise in conditions with lot's of grip.

From the driver's seat it's similar size to a corolla but the wagon body style does make gear carrying easier and you do get significantly more room.
My only gripe was that this was the last model without door window frames. So you can't fit a weather shield, which I would have liked.

There's only 1 downside IMHO. Subaru use a timing belt instead of timing chain and it's recommended to change every 100K klm (60K miles).
A mate of mine never changed his and the belt broke at 280K klm. It destroys engine as pistons hit valves...
Other than the timing belt they are reliable. As a review comparison I read years ago said of the Forester compared to competition: The Forester didn't really shine in any area, but just did everything we wanted and was not the worst at anything. I found that accurate.

Yup
thats why we opted for a CRV over a Subaru. they go 3-400K with simple maintenance. We love ours. Great milages as well

Choderboy wrote in post #19458449
.
How about 33mpg? I owned a 2006 Subaru Forester for 3 years. On the highway with speedo indicating 115-120 klm/hr (ie, averaging 73mph) I used 8.6L/100km which is 33mpg.
I had a roof racks with a 'cage' with a bit of stuff so 35mpg is probably right on without that. It was automatic too so expect a bit better with a manual.

Like a lot of modern AWD, it drives front wheels only until slip is detected then drive is also sent to rear. Compared to a Honda CR-V with the same system, the front wheels dig a little smaller whole than the Honda before sending power to the rear.
The big advantage with the Subaru is that it just requires a very simple mod, cut into wiring loom beside gear shifter and fit a simple on-off switch. This switch turns on power to both ends.
So in slippery conditions you can have power going to both ends when you choose. Forgetting it's on would be unwise in conditions with lot's of grip.

From the driver's seat it's similar size to a corolla but the wagon body style does make gear carrying easier and you do get significantly more room.
My only gripe was that this was the last model without door window frames. So you can't fit a weather shield, which I would have liked.

There's only 1 downside IMHO. Subaru use a timing belt instead of timing chain and it's recommended to change every 100K klm (60K miles).
A mate of mine never changed his and the belt broke at 280K klm. It destroys engine as pistons hit valves...
Other than the timing belt they are reliable. As a review comparison I read years ago said of the Forester compared to competition: The Forester didn't really shine in any area, but just did everything we wanted and was not the worst at anything. I found that accurate.
.

.

33 miles per gallon is great for a Forester-sized vehicle with AWD!

My Mom and Dad each have a Forester, and have had them for many years. . So I am quite familiar with the model. . Unfortunately, their Foresters have had some repair and maintenance issues pop up here and there over the years. . One even had a transmission (automatic) go bad and need to be replaced with only 150,000 miles on the car. . I just can't take that kind of risk. . I really need a car that will absolutely not need any unexpected maintenance issues or repairs.

Foresters may be great for "normal" people who have a reasonable income, or who have some savings to draw from for when something breaks, or who trade their cars in before they reach 200,000 miles. . But for me I need an extreme outlier kind of car that costs practically nothing to keep running for hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of miles.

I would be scared to death to have a car with an automatic transmission, because they could go at any time after the 200,000 mile mark. . What then? . I mean, if I have no money to have a transmission repaired or replaced, what in the world would I ever do if I had an automatic and it went out on me? . I would simply just be stranded and not be able to drive for months or years until I inherited some money or something ... like that's ever going to happen.

But if I ever managed to be able to get a real job or some way of earning a reasonable income, then yeah, a Forester would probably give me the best value for the dollar. . Good suggestion.

.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19457864
Oh boy. I saw only part of what you say to be true when I was there, and most of what you say is BS. The western media gets a lot wrong about China, such as the 1 child rule. That hasn't been in place for the past 45 years since I know people with siblings that are at at least that old. The Chinese have a lot more freedom to produce and consume than you know. A friend recently bought a Mercedes, mostly because of the name. It was gas powered. She also likes Burberry scarves and Dior perfumes and handbags.

I said, "...predominantly command economy."

You know what "predominantly" means, right?

Do you deny the Soviet Union had a command economy? But even the Soviet Union permitted a small amount of free enterprise. Even in the Soviet Union, people could buy small amounts of Western goods, such as clothing and even automobiles. Very small amounts, proportional to the national economy, not enough to significantly affect government economic direction.

And, notice, that's all you can provide as examples in China: Very small amounts, not significant enough to affect government economic direction.

I studied China professionally for decades.

How it was done certainly matters.