Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?  (Read 13284 times)
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2012, 08:47:54 PM »
ReplyReply

troll

noun


One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2012, 09:57:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you check Ray's previous postings you find that he is no troll. As far as I understand he is an experienced MFDB user with background in both astronomy and capture devices.

I don't know why he made the original posting. I'm pretty sure that we all are used to quite a bit of marketing hyperbole.

Also, I would say that the points Ray mentions are not with merit. I would also ask, what does "film like" mean? Tri-X, Panatomic-X, Velvia or Provia like?

I guess that Ray has an issue with all Dalsa based backs since he has serious interest in astrophotography and it seems that Dalsa chips don't work well at long exposures, something the older P45 backs did extremely well.

Best regards
Erik



troll

noun


One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2012, 11:47:12 PM »
ReplyReply

USB 3 anyone?

Does it work yet?

Of course it does.  I have a usb 3 card reader that is extremely fast, it delivers what was promised by Lexar.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2012, 10:03:07 AM »
ReplyReply

USB 3 anyone?

Does it work yet?

USB 3 on IQ or Credo backs....
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2012, 10:44:00 AM »
ReplyReply


It does the MFD sector no favours when companies make false claims like this.



Ray



You can add non functional USB 3 to that list.
Logged
Marlyn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253


« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2012, 01:46:36 PM »
ReplyReply

You are looking for Truth in advertising ?

That is like looking for Ice on the sun.
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2012, 01:51:07 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

Casablanca ...
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833



« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2013, 10:42:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Well folks, I’m back after an absence forced by various work and family circumstances...can’t believe it’s been 5 months now!

I thought I’d take up where I left off...which was this thread that I started.

Very interesting to read the large range of responses. I’ll try to get to all the main points that were made and the people who made them:

Yair: Glad to see your humourous take on it! Is “so shoot me!” an officially sanctioned response in the Leaf Customer Service training manual? Wink - ha, don’t worry, it’s fine between friends. Actually, I had no idea that you did your marketing copy in-house yourself, and if I’d known you were double-/triple-jobbing I would not have been so harsh. Sorry, man.

Erik with a ‘k’, Simon: thanks for the support – you guys saw the point I was making (and even remembered my background in astronomical imaging and detectors).

Eric with a ‘c’: you seem to have confused me with FredBGG. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t. We are not intellectually joined at the hip...

Doug: Clever riposte! Was the Jameson advert specifically chosen to target my nationality? Just goes to show that marketing is commonly OTT in many jurisdictions. There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera. Where I live, the Advertising Standards Authority has the power to quash an advert which makes false or misleading claims of the latter type. (Their complaint handling is a transparent process and it’s quite interesting to read their online Complaints Bulletins to see which ones were upheld and which were rejected, and why).

Several of you: What I found quite remarkable is how many of you (most if not all US-based?) were resigned to low standards in advertising, generally. Do you not have something like the aforementioned ASAI over there?

Andy: you deserve a special reply. In 22 years of active internet usage, not once was I ever called a troll. On the contrary, I usually go out of my way to be helpful and informative and above all, factually accurate. So you have broken my troll duck; you’ve deflowered my troll virginity. I am slightly tickled at that. But next time, you might want to check a member’s post history before jumping in with the name-calling?

Anyway, glad to be back on LL.
Ray



Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2013, 11:32:04 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera.

This is the key point.  I think it belongs in the collection of things that includes claims for "16 bit" images.
Logged

Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2819


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2013, 11:56:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Well folks, I’m back after an absence forced by various work and family circumstances...can’t believe it’s been 5 months now!

Hope your family is well!
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2013, 12:55:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

It is nice to have you back!

Best regards
Erik

Well folks, I’m back after an absence forced by various work and family circumstances...can’t believe it’s been 5 months now!

I thought I’d take up where I left off...which was this thread that I started.

Very interesting to read the large range of responses. I’ll try to get to all the main points that were made and the people who made them:

Yair: Glad to see your humourous take on it! Is “so shoot me!” an officially sanctioned response in the Leaf Customer Service training manual? Wink - ha, don’t worry, it’s fine between friends. Actually, I had no idea that you did your marketing copy in-house yourself, and if I’d known you were double-/triple-jobbing I would not have been so harsh. Sorry, man.

Erik with a ‘k’, Simon: thanks for the support – you guys saw the point I was making (and even remembered my background in astronomical imaging and detectors).

Eric with a ‘c’: you seem to have confused me with FredBGG. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t. We are not intellectually joined at the hip...

Doug: Clever riposte! Was the Jameson advert specifically chosen to target my nationality? Just goes to show that marketing is commonly OTT in many jurisdictions. There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera. Where I live, the Advertising Standards Authority has the power to quash an advert which makes false or misleading claims of the latter type. (Their complaint handling is a transparent process and it’s quite interesting to read their online Complaints Bulletins to see which ones were upheld and which were rejected, and why).

Several of you: What I found quite remarkable is how many of you (most if not all US-based?) were resigned to low standards in advertising, generally. Do you not have something like the aforementioned ASAI over there?

Andy: you deserve a special reply. In 22 years of active internet usage, not once was I ever called a troll. On the contrary, I usually go out of my way to be helpful and informative and above all, factually accurate. So you have broken my troll duck; you’ve deflowered my troll virginity. I am slightly tickled at that. But next time, you might want to check a member’s post history before jumping in with the name-calling?

Anyway, glad to be back on LL.
Ray




« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 01:00:24 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2013, 10:40:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray,

I my suggest that the industry has some problems with measurable quantities. It is often forgotten that we are actually dealing with physics.

Take DR. To my best knowledge it is both measurable and well defined. Photographic marketing has made it into some esotheric quantity. Personally, I don't think that DR is the paramount quality in imaging. I was shooting Velvia in my film days, not a film known for wide dynamic range. That said, I of course regard extended DR to be a good thing. Good DR has a natural coupling to good high ISO performance. A system performing well at high ISO doesn't need to have good DR, but a system with great DR is capable of handling underexposure well, which is essentially he same as increasing ISO.

Or three D-look. I'm am pretty sure about different people meaning different things by 3D-look. One aspect is essentially the ability to achieve sense of depth by selective focus, which requires good large aperture performance. Other folks may mean high microcontrast, which may mean high MTF near Nyquist (which may be a good thing or bad thing).

Than we have the perception of CCDs giving better color than CMOS. I can imagine, that CCD sensors as a group give different colors than CMOS sensors as a group, but I can hardly believe that the possible differences in color rendition have to do with circuit design and a lot to do with CGA and processing.

We know, I think, that high MTF near Nyquist produces fake detail. I get the impression that fake detail is widely accepted and appreciated as long as it is not showing up as color moiré.

I have bought many cameras, essentially went with most upgrades within my systems. For me, the major driver behind this was essentially the need for a good camera with live view, that I regard to be essential for my way of making pictures. I use it for pinpoint focusing.

I have little doubt that the new cameras I have are "better" than the old ones, but they don't make better pictures. Pictures are about subject, light and perception. Technology can help and expand possibilities.

Best regards
Erik



Doug: Clever riposte! Was the Jameson advert specifically chosen to target my nationality? Just goes to show that marketing is commonly OTT in many jurisdictions. There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera. Where I live, the Advertising Standards Authority has the power to quash an advert which makes false or misleading claims of the latter type. (Their complaint handling is a transparent process and it’s quite interesting to read their online Complaints Bulletins to see which ones were upheld and which were rejected, and why).


Anyway, glad to be back on LL.
Ray




« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 11:35:27 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2013, 01:34:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I will take this chance to address you original post:

"The Leaf Aptus-II delivers stunning, film-like quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution"
How is that not true? This is a statement about image quality, not features. Leaf Aptus is targeted mainly at studio shooters. High ISO and long exposures are not basic features for that demo. You can also fault their camera for not having: the best auto focus, the best shooting speed, the best video capability,  auto-ISO, JPEG in camera - there are many many features that exist in a Canon 1DX that are missing from a Leaf camera - that does not make Canon the better camera, or the quoted statement untrue. I guess there is an undecided argument that when you mention "image quality" - are you talking about image quality under the best circumstances, or the worst circumstances, or some kind of average between the two. To me it makes sense that it is measured under the best circumstances, unless specified otherwise.

"quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry" - Copy from 2010, still as far as image quality alone, I don't think it has become untrue. They are not saying it's better than everyone else, just that it is on the front line with the other "bests".

"unsurpassed 12 f-stops of dynamic range" - As was pointed out here, the original copy was written in 2010 when it was indeed the best dynamic range in the market. Careless copy paste and neglect to effectively review copy before it goes out. I'm pretty sure they didn't release that statement after careful review and with intent to deceive. Still, I guess this is the one thing you can really fault them here.

"the only back with an internal rotating sensor" - I was not aware of other backs with *internal* rotating sensor. I know on cameras like GX680 or RZ67 you can rotate the backs, but what other backs have internal rotation, without using the camera's rotation or taking the back out?

Usage of words like "stunning", "unrivaled", "unsurpassed" - This is a common disease of Israeli marketing. They've latched on the the hyperbole way of creating marketing statements, and it's very hard to convince them that sometimes a reserved statement can make a better impression.



« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 01:45:17 AM by sbernthal » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4059



« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2013, 01:53:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I have found that sample shots on the Canon site are usually typical or even *worse* than what one can expect to get from the camera. Only case of truth in camera advertising I am aware of.

Edmund


You are looking for Truth in advertising ?

That is like looking for Ice on the sun.
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512


« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2013, 02:21:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I have found that sample shots on the Canon site are usually typical or even *worse* than what one can expect to get from the camera. Only case of truth in camera advertising I am aware of.

The other case is Nikon... it seems like mediocre or even bad sample shots is a very strong tradition with Japanese camera manufacturers.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2013, 02:29:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Well, my guess is that some potential buyers intend to use the camera outside the studio.

Regarding the DR stuff, Nikon D3X that has been introduced 2008 had DR in excess of 12EV (12.8 at the pixel level), so the Aptus numbers were clearly not best in 2010. But full frame DSLRs are perhaps a different market?!

Ray indicated that he got the mail in question from Leaf marketing 2012-05, so if Leaf claims to have market leading performance that would refer to the late 2012 not 2010.

So, I think Ray is absolutely correct in his statement.

Best regards
Erik



I will take this chance to address you original post:

"The Leaf Aptus-II delivers stunning, film-like quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution"
How is that not true? This is a statement about image quality, not features. Leaf Aptus is targeted mainly at studio shooters. High ISO and long exposures are not basic features for that demo. You can also fault their camera for not having: the best auto focus, the best shooting speed, the best video capability,  auto-ISO, JPEG in camera - there are many many features that exist in a Canon 1DX that are missing from a Leaf camera - that does not make Canon the better camera, or the quoted statement untrue. I guess there is an undecided argument that when you mention "image quality" - are you talking about image quality under the best circumstances, or the worst circumstances, or some kind of average between the two. To me it makes sense that it is measured under the best circumstances, unless specified otherwise.

"quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry" - Copy from 2010, still as far as image quality alone, I don't think it has become untrue. They are not saying it's better than everyone else, just that it is on the front line with the other "bests".

"unsurpassed 12 f-stops of dynamic range" - As was pointed out here, the original copy was written in 2010 when it was indeed the best dynamic range in the market. Careless copy paste and neglect to effectively review copy before it goes out. I'm pretty sure they didn't release that statement after careful review and with intent to deceive. Still, I guess this is the one thing you can really fault them here.

"the only back with an internal rotating sensor" - I was not aware of other backs with *internal* rotating sensor. I know on cameras like GX680 or RZ67 you can rotate the backs, but what other backs have internal rotation, without using the camera's rotation or taking the back out?

Usage of words like "stunning", "unrivaled", "unsurpassed" - This is a common disease of Israeli marketing. They've latched on the the hyperbole way of creating marketing statements, and it's very hard to convince them that sometimes a reserved statement can make a better impression.




« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 02:33:56 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2013, 02:53:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding the DR stuff, Nikon D3X that has been introduced 2008 had DR in excess of 12EV (12.8 at the pixel level), so the Aptus numbers were clearly not best in 2010. But full frame DSLRs are perhaps a different market?!
Leaf did not say *better* than anyone else, they said - "unsurpassed", which means to the best of my knowledge, equal or higher, so Nikon 12EV is equal, therefore not in contradiction to the statement, even under your assumptions.


Ray indicated that he got the mail in question from Leaf marketing 2012-05, so if Leaf claims to have market leading performance that would refer to the late 2012 not 2010.

They claimed market leading image quality, not performance. As I elaborated, image quality can be interpreted as under best circumstances, or worst circumstances, or any combination thereof. If you think that when a camera manufacturer makes a statement regarding image quality, they mean under the highest ISO settings, or some sort of weighted average along all the possible ISO settings, or maybe they are talking about long exposures, that would an argument I would be very interested in reading.


So, I think Ray is absolutely correct in his statement.

Thank you for bolding your statement, but to which of Ray's statements were you referring - he made several. I think all concede that Leaf's statement about Best DR in 2012 was incorrect, and there's a question whether it was negligent or willful. If you were referring to one of the other statements, or all of them, it was unclear to me.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2013, 03:16:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

12.8 EV is quite a bit more than 12 EV.

Image quality is a vague term.

What Ray said was essentially that Leaf may hold a lead in image quality under a very limited set of conditions. Would the statement say that the Aptus has an unsurpassed image quality at minimum ISO in studio conditions I guess that Ray would not object, but my guess is that Ray is interested in long exposures, night exposures and such things.

Best regards
Erik



Performance does not necessarily speed. It means the ability perform. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/performance

Leaf did not say *better* than anyone else, they said - "unsurpassed", which means to the best of my knowledge, equal or higher, so Nikon 12EV is equal, therefore not in contradiction to the statement, even under your assumptions.


They claimed market leading image quality, not performance. As I elaborated, image quality can be interpreted as under best circumstances, or worst circumstances, or any combination thereof. If you think that when a camera manufacturer makes a statement regarding image quality, they mean under the highest ISO settings, or some sort of weighted average along all the possible ISO settings, or maybe they are talking about long exposures, that would an argument I would be very interested in reading.


Thank you for bolding your statement, but to which of Ray's statements were you referring - he made several. I think all concede that Leaf's statement about Best DR in 2012 was incorrect, and there's a question whether it was negligent or willful. If you were referring to one of the other statements, or all of them, it was unclear to me.
Logged

sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2013, 03:23:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Image quality is a vague term.

That was my entire point.
As a vague term, you can't expect marketing people not to make excessive statements about it.

As far as DR, I missed that part of your original statement. Still DR measurement methods are not something that is clear and known to everyone, and like car companies boasting best gas mileage, you don't know exactly how each company measures it and who has the better real result, or if it can even be quantified into a scalar in a way that is uncontested.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2013, 04:01:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

No, DR is a very technical term. It is the full well capacity divided by readout noise. It is actually specified by the vendor of the image sensor. It is usually expressed in dB , you divide the dB rating by six to get EVs. Camera electronics may/will add some noise to sensor signal.

A photographers interpretation of DR may be a different thing.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad