...
But we are not shills selling snake oil - frankly that implication was deeply insulting.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Dear Doug,
I am assuming you are refering to my reply where i used that phrase. I am really sorry to read that you feel deeply insulted. That was certainly not my intention.
I was actually just trying to be helpful, but since english is not my native toung, maybe I don´t have sufficient understanding of all the nuances that phrase conveys. Please, let me try again:
I was trying to give an answer to this:
The point is to explain to someone who isn't a scientist why most 22mp backs are better than most 22mp dSLRs. Why pixels are not all created equally. Assume you have about 10 characters worth of space to explain that and the person is not the 5% of users who get deeply involved in the science. "True 16 bit" is about as good as I can come up with as most customers understand the difference between 8 and 16 bits elsewhere in photography. I also considered "Great tonal smoothness" or "holds up to strong styling in post processing well" but it didn't have the same ring and took up much more room. I'm open for suggestions. We're not trying to be dishonest or disingenuous.
I'm serious when I say I'm open for suggestions.
For reference, this is what I wrote:
As a person considering the jump to MF, my take is that your marketing ought to reflect reality. Thing is when you quote 16 bit as something that makes MF stand out from FF DSLRs, and threads on several forums find this questionable, I as a potential customer begin to wonder if the whole thing is snake oil. I have spent quite some time trying to sort this out and I am not finished yet...
Now, from what I have managed to pick up from numerous threads it may appear that it is the very size of the sensor itself AND coupled with stricter tollerances in every component that gives MF its alleged superior image quality. If this is actually the case, then this is VERY interesting for a potential customer since this will not be available in a future FF DSLR. Of course DSLRs will continue to evolve, but they will not grow bigger sensors. I also find it unlikely that they will increase their quality tollerances. Hence, at a given purchase date, the benefits from a MF investment will probably hold itself against future FF DSLRs for more than one or two generations (btw a great wife argument!).
I really don´t have a ready 15 char slogan for you but something along the line of "Built to MF quality tollerances" , "Designed for MF quality" would at least to me suggest that the quality of MF has someting to do with the quality of the entire system. Sure, lots of people will contest this or similar assertions, but at least we will not have threads from people with superior technical knowledge in image processing, etc more or less PROVING your (16 bit) advantage is wrong.
Hay, OK ! Maybe I still haven´t got it - just my two (amaturish) cents trying to be helpful .
Christopher
I am a seasoned amature using high end Nikons for a long time and I am considering to make the jump to some MF brand. I am currently doing my research to determine what advantages MF can give, and if I need it for my photography.
From several dealers I get the argument that the 16 bits is what gives MF superior file quality. Well, here on LuLA and other forums that assertion is disputed. That, at least to me, is very confusing and I have spent quite some time trying to figure out what is really the case. Now since this turns out not to be exactly right, I naturally become even more inclined to carefully research other claims about MF too. Hence, I suggest using some other phrase which conveys accurate information. It would make life a lot easier for me as a researching customer.
I hope you can understand that my argument is NOT about you personally or any other dealer for that matter.
From your first post I took it that you use the 16 bit argument believing it will convince customers. I am trying to tell you that at least for for me it does not work.
Sincerely,
Christopher
PS
I see that while writing both Michael and Hulyss have taken offence too. Well, I can just apologize once more. I am truly sorry.
DS