Review of Freedom Ballhead Model FB-12QR

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
u...
No, I do not earn anything from the people I review. Look at the code and
you will see a straight link to Freedom. The clickthrough tracking is on
the ads on the side, google and amazom ads, nothing to do with the
article.

I put in the review what I could. I did not feel I had more to say, so I
did not. It was not a comparison review. I may do one of those in future
but this was just a straight writeup on the product I have been using. I
had no problems with it over several months of heavy use, so what more
could I say beyond the main features and my experience? If you would care
to post your more extensive review of ballheads I would be interested in
reading it.

I cross post because it is relevant to a number of groups and there are
those who prefer this to individual posting.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Happy Traveler wrote:
Mr. Cosshall's review of the Freedom ballhead is shallow and conveys
practically no information, except for his warm endorsement of the
product. There is almost no hard data and no comparison whatsoever to any
other ballhead on the market; feature, price or performance-wise. I do
not know the gentleman, but have seen his other prolific cross-posted
usenet announcements of other photography products. Is it only my
impression that he is collecting a commission for each viewing of his
'reviews'?

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
u...
I've just posted my review of the Freedom tripod Ballhead:

I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet police. They
click on your links, read your stuff, then complain about it or analyze your
motives. I don't care about your motives or wasting time trying to figure
out your angle. That has nothing to do with the content.

I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet police. They
click on your links, read your stuff, then complain about it or analyze
your motives. I don't care about your motives or wasting time trying to
figure out your angle. That has nothing to do with the content.


I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to narrow
the choices down to something that will work for me. There are dozen
manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging from less than $50 to
$500 or more for a seemingly identical product. And on the manufacturers'
sites lots of mumbo jumbo about the vast superiority of their
super-fine-grain, accurate-to the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited
erbium-titanium-niobium finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one
that he'd just purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than
impressed. It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just three
or four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I noticed Mr.
Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find some useful
information. Might have been OK for one of those postings that people put by
the hundreds on store sites about their personal experience with a product
they had just purchased, but that's it. For something purporting to be a
review in a professional publication it was a disappointment. What else
should I say?

"Happy Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet police. They
click on your links, read your stuff, then complain about it or analyze
your motives. I don't care about your motives or wasting time trying to
figure out your angle. That has nothing to do with the content.


I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to narrow
the choices down to something that will work for me. There are dozen
manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging from less than $50
to $500 or more for a seemingly identical product. And on the
manufacturers' sites lots of mumbo jumbo about the vast superiority of
their super-fine-grain, accurate-to the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited
erbium-titanium-niobium finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one
that he'd just purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than
impressed. It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just
three or four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I
noticed Mr. Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find
some useful information. Might have been OK for one of those postings that
people put by the hundreds on store sites about their personal experience
with a product they had just purchased, but that's it. For something
purporting to be a review in a professional publication it was a
disappointment. What else should I say?


I think you said way too much. If you don't like what you read hit the
button for the "next message" and move on. Have you learned the two most
important things in life ? 1/ it's an imperfect world 2/ do not be easily
annoyed. I am violating #2 right now by feeling and spreading more
annoyance. I will stop now !

policy_wonk wrote:
"Happy Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet
police. They click on your links, read your stuff, then complain
about it or analyze your motives. I don't care about your motives
or wasting time trying to figure out your angle. That has nothing
to do with the content.


I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to
narrow the choices down to something that will work for me. There
are dozen manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging
from less than $50 to $500 or more for a seemingly identical
product. And on the manufacturers' sites lots of mumbo jumbo about
the vast superiority of their super-fine-grain, accurate-to
the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited erbium-titanium-niobium
finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one that he'd just
purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than
impressed.
It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just three
or
four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I noticed
Mr. Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find
some
useful information. Might have been OK for one of those postings
that people put by the hundreds on store sites about their personal
experience with a product they had just purchased, but that's it.
For something purporting to be a review in a professional
publication it was a disappointment. What else should I say?

I think you said way too much. If you don't like what you read hit
the button for the "next message" and move on. Have you learned the
two most important things in life ? 1/ it's an imperfect world 2/ do
not be easily annoyed. I am violating #2 right now by feeling and
spreading more annoyance. I will stop now !

I doubt it. You have too much of the preacher in you.

The way things get polished is through contact with abrasives. Wayne
tries to do a good job, and sometimes he comes up a bit short. From
what I've seen, he makes changes when appropriately criticized.

If Mr HT clicks on by and says nothing, Wayne doesn't have the
opportunity to respond to the abrasion, either by refuting or by
shaping up his act.

Who is served by that?

--
Frank ess

"Happy Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet police. They
click on your links, read your stuff, then complain about it or analyze
your motives. I don't care about your motives or wasting time trying to
figure out your angle. That has nothing to do with the content.


I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to narrow
the choices down to something that will work for me. There are dozen
manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging from less than $50
to $500 or more for a seemingly identical product. And on the
manufacturers' sites lots of mumbo jumbo about the vast superiority of
their super-fine-grain, accurate-to the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited
erbium-titanium-niobium finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one
that he'd just purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than
impressed. It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just
three or four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I
noticed Mr. Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find
some useful information. Might have been OK for one of those postings that
people put by the hundreds on store sites about their personal experience
with a product they had just purchased, but that's it. For something
purporting to be a review in a professional publication it was a
disappointment. What else should I say?

I am astounded that your built-in measurement gauge compares ballheads from
$50 to $500 and finds them "seemingly identical product". Also to see your
assessment of the manufacturers' specs reduced to a hyperbolic dissertation
on some sort of mythical material leaves me wondering whether or not you
know what you are looking for or if it even exists.
Put your usage needs into a clear request and I'm sure you will get many
suggestions.
Bob

I don't have an issue with people criticizing an article, just the
approach that was used. In fact the article is no worse than most such
reviews in camera magazines. Now if the original critic had simply asked
if I could do a more exhaustive, comparative review of a number of the
main ball heads, I would have been contacting the suppliers in 10
minutes of reading it to get them in for review.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Frank ess wrote:
policy_wonk wrote:
"Happy Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet
police. They click on your links, read your stuff, then complain
about it or analyze your motives. I don't care about your motives
or wasting time trying to figure out your angle. That has nothing
to do with the content.


I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to
narrow the choices down to something that will work for me. There
are dozen manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging
from less than $50 to $500 or more for a seemingly identical
product. And on the manufacturers' sites lots of mumbo jumbo about
the vast superiority of their super-fine-grain, accurate-to
the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited erbium-titanium-niobium
finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one that he'd just
purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than impressed.
It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just three or
four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I noticed
Mr. Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find some
useful information. Might have been OK for one of those postings
that people put by the hundreds on store sites about their personal
experience with a product they had just purchased, but that's it.
For something purporting to be a review in a professional
publication it was a disappointment. What else should I say?

I think you said way too much. If you don't like what you read hit
the button for the "next message" and move on. Have you learned the
two most important things in life ? 1/ it's an imperfect world 2/ do
not be easily annoyed. I am violating #2 right now by feeling and
spreading more annoyance. I will stop now !

I doubt it. You have too much of the preacher in you.

The way things get polished is through contact with abrasives. Wayne
tries to do a good job, and sometimes he comes up a bit short. From what
I've seen, he makes changes when appropriately criticized.

If Mr HT clicks on by and says nothing, Wayne doesn't have the
opportunity to respond to the abrasion, either by refuting or by shaping
up his act.

Who is served by that?

Thanks.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



policy_wonk wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
u...
No, I do not earn anything from the people I review. Look at the code and
you will see a straight link to Freedom. The clickthrough tracking is on
the ads on the side, google and amazom ads, nothing to do with the
article.

I put in the review what I could. I did not feel I had more to say, so I
did not. It was not a comparison review. I may do one of those in future
but this was just a straight writeup on the product I have been using. I
had no problems with it over several months of heavy use, so what more
could I say beyond the main features and my experience? If you would care
to post your more extensive review of ballheads I would be interested in
reading it.

I cross post because it is relevant to a number of groups and there are
those who prefer this to individual posting.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Happy Traveler wrote:
Mr. Cosshall's review of the Freedom ballhead is shallow and conveys
practically no information, except for his warm endorsement of the
product. There is almost no hard data and no comparison whatsoever to any
other ballhead on the market; feature, price or performance-wise. I do
not know the gentleman, but have seen his other prolific cross-posted
usenet announcements of other photography products. Is it only my
impression that he is collecting a commission for each viewing of his
'reviews'?

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message
u...
I've just posted my review of the Freedom tripod Ballhead:
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet police. They
click on your links, read your stuff, then complain about it or analyze your
motives. I don't care about your motives or wasting time trying to figure
out your angle. That has nothing to do with the content.

On May 9, 7:20�am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
I don't have an issue with people criticizing an article, just the
approach that was used. In fact the article is no worse than most such
reviews in camera magazines. Now if the original critic had simply asked
if I could do a more exhaustive, comparative review of a number of the
main ball heads, I would have been contacting the suppliers in 10
minutes of reading it to get them in for review.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog *http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/



Frank ess wrote:
policy_wonk wrote:
"Happy Traveler" wrote in message
m...
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet
police. They click on your links, read your stuff, then complain
about it or analyze your motives. I don't care about your motives
or wasting time trying to figure out your angle. That has nothing
to do with the content.

I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to
narrow the choices down to something that will work for me. There
are dozen manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging
from less than $50 to $500 or more for a seemingly identical
product. And on the manufacturers' sites lots of mumbo jumbo about
the vast superiority of their super-fine-grain, accurate-to
the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited erbium-titanium-niobium
finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one that he'd just
purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than impressed.
It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just three or
four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I noticed
Mr. Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find some
useful information. Might have been OK for one of those postings
that people put by the hundreds on store sites about their personal
experience with a product they had just purchased, but that's it.
For something purporting to be a review in a professional
publication it was a disappointment. What else should I say?

I think you said way too much. *If you don't like what you read hit
the button for the "next message" and move on. *Have you learned the
two most important things in life ? 1/ it's an imperfect world 2/ do
not be easily annoyed. *I am violating #2 right now by feeling and
spreading more annoyance. *I will stop now !

I doubt it. You have too much of the preacher in you.

The way things get polished is through contact with abrasives. Wayne
tries to do a good job, and sometimes he comes up a bit short. From what
I've seen, he makes changes when appropriately criticized.

If Mr HT clicks on by and says nothing, Wayne doesn't have the
opportunity to respond to the abrasion, either by refuting or by shaping
up his act.

Who is served by that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Standard reply, one I use often on DPReview: tell the complainer to
ask for his money back.

Too much free material warps people, I think. DPReview is always
getting criticized for not doing enough reviews, not doing the reviews
the way that particular reader would like, having a terrible layout,
upwards and onwards.

That's one of the reasons I don't put very much current material up on
my web site. I don't have the patience to wade through the people who
can do it better, will do it better, know someone who can do it
better, and who never do it at all.

Well put.

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Charlie Self wrote:
On May 9, 7:20�am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
I don't have an issue with people criticizing an article, just the
approach that was used. In fact the article is no worse than most such
reviews in camera magazines. Now if the original critic had simply asked
if I could do a more exhaustive, comparative review of a number of the
main ball heads, I would have been contacting the suppliers in 10
minutes of reading it to get them in for review.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog �http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/



Frank ess wrote:
policy_wonk wrote:
"Happy Traveler" wrote in message
. ..
I think you are wasting print on those self appointed usenet
police. They click on your links, read your stuff, then complain
about it or analyze your motives. I don't care about your motives
or wasting time trying to figure out your angle. That has nothing
to do with the content.
I intend to purchase a ballhead and have desperately been trying to
narrow the choices down to something that will work for me. There
are dozen manufacturers, hundreds of models, with prices ranging
from less than $50 to $500 or more for a seemingly identical
product. And on the manufacturers' sites lots of mumbo jumbo about
the vast superiority of their super-fine-grain, accurate-to
the-last-angstrom, electro-deposited erbium-titanium-niobium
finish... A coworker let me try an expensive one that he'd just
purchased (I won't mention the brand) and I was less than impressed.
It's a very confusing topic, and the local stores have just three or
four models of a single brand to put my hands on. So when I noticed
Mr. Cosshall's link to a review, I jumped on it, hoping to find some
useful information. Might have been OK for one of those postings
that people put by the hundreds on store sites about their personal
experience with a product they had just purchased, but that's it.
For something purporting to be a review in a professional
publication it was a disappointment. What else should I say?
I think you said way too much. �If you don't like what you read hit
the button for the "next message" and move on. �Have you learned the
two most important things in life ? 1/ it's an imperfect world 2/ do
not be easily annoyed. �I am violating #2 right now by feeling and
spreading more annoyance. �I will stop now !
I doubt it. You have too much of the preacher in you.
The way things get polished is through contact with abrasives. Wayne
tries to do a good job, and sometimes he comes up a bit short. From what
I've seen, he makes changes when appropriately criticized.
If Mr HT clicks on by and says nothing, Wayne doesn't have the
opportunity to respond to the abrasion, either by refuting or by shaping
up his act.
Who is served by that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Standard reply, one I use often on DPReview: tell the complainer to
ask for his money back.

Too much free material warps people, I think. DPReview is always
getting criticized for not doing enough reviews, not doing the reviews
the way that particular reader would like, having a terrible layout,
upwards and onwards.

That's one of the reasons I don't put very much current material up on
my web site. I don't have the patience to wade through the people who
can do it better, will do it better, know someone who can do it
better, and who never do it at all.