Reading mode: Light Dark

Is this misleading advertising?

Go to last post
R

riman

Senior Member
Messages
1,267
Solutions
1
Reaction score
388
Location
Rhode Island, US
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...

I am getting one and I better get that exact performance..
 
Last edited:
riman said:
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...
Click to expand...
You make pack away your forks and lay down those torches...

Bill had a close encounter with the D500 and has this to say re. high ISO...

"Try as I might I could not see any "garbage" looking splotchy junk even at ISO 25,600. I did see a picture of a cat, yes an infamous cat picture, taken at 51,200 and when I zoomed in to just the eye I could not see noise in the eyeball, but I could see a lot of detail..."

If you can look past the boys going terrible off topic :-D have a look here (and the following pages):

Loading…

www.nikoncafe.com
 
Janoch said:
riman said:
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...
Click to expand...
You make pack away your forks and lay down those torches...

Bill had a close encounter with the D500 and has this to say re. high ISO...

"Try as I might I could not see any "garbage" looking splotchy junk even at ISO 25,600. I did see a picture of a cat, yes an infamous cat picture, taken at 51,200 and when I zoomed in to just the eye I could not see noise in the eyeball, but I could see a lot of detail..."

If you can look past the boys going terrible off topic :-D have a look here (and the following pages):

http://www.nikoncafe.com/xenf/index.php?threads/d500-is-here.295364/page-31
Click to expand...
Thanks for the Shout Out, I'm glad that SOMEBODY reads my mindless ramblings :-D
 
riman said:
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...

I am getting one and I better get that exact performance..
Click to expand...
As I replied to you in That Other Thread it really is all about expectations.

If you are expecting to get that quality, at that size, in that type of situation then you should expect that.

If you are expecting to crop 50% out the frame, blow it up to a 12x18 foot billboard, then I think your expectations are not correct.

The problem in my opinion, especially when we get to these fringes, is that so much depends on usage as well as subject.

The D810 I have is 64-12800. I can tell you that I can, with work, get a decent 12,800 but it takes work and you can see the quality difference. Do I think Nikon "lied" to me? Absolutely not. Shrink that puppy a bit, the noise disappears. Try to print at 12x18, not so good.

It sounds to me as if you are trying to set up for failure, I'm not sure I understand what you are really looking for.

Can you perhaps explain more?
 
If you are expecting the d500 to meet or exceed d750 FX noise levels, then I believe you are going to be very disappointed and angry. That would be your own fault, not Nikon's false advertising. Many people have already tried to calm down the overzealous expectations of noise performance of this camera. It's a DX camera and it will have noise performance like a DX camera, probably very much like the d7200.

We do not know what kind of noise reduction that Nikon may be applying to the OOC JPG's now. It might be very good, but it is still software noise reduction after the fact and may not be as nice as it seems to appear on these small samples.

If you need/want noise performance that is better than the d7200 can provide, you should stay with FX and be happy.

Kerry

--
When is it "Okay" to be mean, petty or unethical?
-
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Last edited:
riman said:
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...

I am getting one and I better get that exact performance..
Click to expand...
Honestly it does sound like you are expecting to be disappointed. While the D500 is a long-awaited Pro DX camera, there is no reason to believe that there has been a huge breakthrough in high-ISO performance. I'd be surpised if it even equals any of the current full frame options. Your gear list shows you have a D750. It might come close to that.

What are you shooting that requires such high ISO? Just curious...
 
I dont see where Nikon are saying that the drummer image was actually taken at ISO 51000, It just states that the camera can shoot to that ISO, An old friend was approached by Canon many years ago who asked if they could use an image of his for advertising, He told them the image was taken on a Nikon and they responded by saying it did not matter as they were not saying that the image was taken with a Canon
 
riman said:
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...

I am getting one and I better get that exact performance..
Click to expand...
When you go to McDonalds do you complain to the staff that your Big Mac doesn't look like it does on the menu? Or that your 6" Sub from Subway is only 5.75"? Advertising is always misleading, everyone knows it, and nothing has changed. No different than Canon showing pictures of it's bodies with the wafer-thin magnesium shell on them making everyone think they are made like a 1-series...very misleading, but everyone knows it.

Also keep in mind heavily downsized JPEGs with NR (or processed NEFs) will look great at the sizes Nikon uses in their ads. I have no doubt a processed ISO 51,200 shot heavily downsized will look that good - they already do on existing cameras. Also if you take a high ISO shot in good light, it's not much different than the same shot at a far lower ISO and can be made to look a lot better than in unfavorable situations.

I don't mean to sound like an a$$, but come on. If you expected exactly as advertised performance from everything you bought you would be one very disappointed individual.
 
Last edited:
Bill Dewey said:
riman said:
I posted this to another thread but I now think it deserves its own discussion.

Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...that if you cannot get a good quality 51000 out of the D500 then they are guilty of serious misleading advertising?

Go here

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d500.html

and scroll down to Brochure ...and look at the part that says 51200..there is a guy playing drums...now if this pics is not at 51200 and we cannot get that kind of ISO performance..then I say Nikon is guilty of misleading advertising...

I am getting one and I better get that exact performance..
Click to expand...
As I replied to you in That Other Thread it really is all about expectations.

If you are expecting to get that quality, at that size, in that type of situation then you should expect that.

If you are expecting to crop 50% out the frame, blow it up to a 12x18 foot billboard, then I think your expectations are not correct.

The problem in my opinion, especially when we get to these fringes, is that so much depends on usage as well as subject.

The D810 I have is 64-12800. I can tell you that I can, with work, get a decent 12,800 but it takes work and you can see the quality difference. Do I think Nikon "lied" to me? Absolutely not. Shrink that puppy a bit, the noise disappears. Try to print at 12x18, not so good.

It sounds to me as if you are trying to set up for failure, I'm not sure I understand what you are really looking for.

Can you perhaps explain more?
Click to expand...
 
Okay a few comments..lets all be gentlemen about this but so many of you completely missed the point.. obviously we have to wait until the reviews are in..that was not the point..

i spent my life time in advertising and I know there are standards as to what can and cannot be said...one great example comes to mind,,,Dunkin Donuts saying its donuts were "90% fat free"

Actually the statement was true but the implication was that donuts are a low fat treat...the FTC shut that campaign down as being very misleading.

Notice on many fliers you get with pics on them with a disclaimer saying the product may not be exactly as pictures..again I think of Subway that tells people the sandwiches are not as large as the image portrays..

and there are more examples

My question and my point of view is that when you show a photo with the large caption..."ISO 51200" and the pic is say 800 iso and you do not disclose that to the reader...you are misleading them into believing something that is not true...

I am not asking if we should wait so see the results and I am not wishing for failure..I just see this as possibly misleading advertising...

How would you feel if you responded to an ad showing a nice juicy sirloin steak with the caption "16 ounces beef for three dollars" and when you ordered the dish it turned out to be chopped hamburg...

A friend of mine years ago who was interested in history ordered an "old fashioned coat hanger" Turned out to be a nail!
 
Last edited:
riman said:
Okay a few comments..lets all be gentlemen about this but so many of you completely missed the point.. obviously we have to wait until the reviews are in..that was not the point..

i spent my life time in advertising and I know there are standards as to what can and cannot be said...one great example comes to mind,,,Dunkin Donuts saying its donuts were "90% fat free"

Actually the statement was true but the implication was that donuts are a low fat treat...the FTC shut that campaign down as being very misleading.

Notice on many fliers you get with pics on them with a disclaimer saying the product may not be exactly as pictures..again I think of Subway that tells people the sandwiches are not as large as the image portrays..

and there are more examples

My question and my point of view is that when you show a photo with the large caption..."ISO 51200" and the pic is say 800 iso and you do not disclose that to the reader...you are misleading them into believing something that is not true...
Click to expand...
No different than advertising pictures of a fully optioned out vehicle and stating "starting at $XX,XXX", a price far lower than the displayed model costs. A caption like "ISO up to 51,200" under a picture does not mean that picture was taken at that level, but I agree that clearly that is what they want people to think.
riman said:
I am not asking if we should wait so see the results and I am not wishing for failure..I just see this as possibly misleading advertising...
Click to expand...
Misleading advertising is everywhere though, good advertising is always in the grey area of truth. Nikon is no different than any other company.
riman said:
How would you feel if you responded to an ad showing a nice juicy sirloin steak with the caption "16 ounces beef for three dollars" and when you ordered the dish it turned out to be chopped hamburg...
Click to expand...
Haha this already happens at every restaurant, maybe just not quite to that extreme of a degree - menu items look nothing like what is on your plate.
riman said:
A friend of mine years ago who was interested in history ordered an "old fashioned coat hanger" Turned out to be a nail!
Click to expand...
I have a better idea of what you mean, but still, the same thing happens everywhere. When ever a car is advertised, for example, they always show the best model with all the bells & whistles, fully optioned out and then say "starting at $xx,xxx" or "get yours today for as low as $199/mo"...you get to the dealer and of course it costs twice as much to get anything like the one in the commercials or the posters.

Anyways, I think that image is in fact ISO 51,200. As I said before, a processed downsized image at ISO 51,200 already looks that good on current cameras, it's nothing special. I'm sure it will be top of the heap of the DX cameras as far as ISO performance goes, probably a stop better than current stuff, but don't expect miracles better than current FX sensors. It's entirely reasonable that picture is ISO 51,200 at that size. Downsizing hides noise extremely well.
 
I just tried to post a link to Peta Pixel but the link was refused. Anyhow, for what it is worth and this could have been referenced/talked about before, it is an article posted January 9th by the person who took concert photos for the D500 launch. The concert photos that appear in the D500 brochure appear to be his. In the article he talks about the high ISO.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I don't know why you couldn't link the article. Here is the petapixel article that I think you are talking about, found here.

Kerry
 
DualSystemGuy said:
riman said:
Okay a few comments..lets all be gentlemen about this but so many of you completely missed the point.. obviously we have to wait until the reviews are in..that was not the point..

i spent my life time in advertising and I know there are standards as to what can and cannot be said...one great example comes to mind,,,Dunkin Donuts saying its donuts were "90% fat free"

Actually the statement was true but the implication was that donuts are a low fat treat...the FTC shut that campaign down as being very misleading.

Notice on many fliers you get with pics on them with a disclaimer saying the product may not be exactly as pictures..again I think of Subway that tells people the sandwiches are not as large as the image portrays..

and there are more examples

My question and my point of view is that when you show a photo with the large caption..."ISO 51200" and the pic is say 800 iso and you do not disclose that to the reader...you are misleading them into believing something that is not true...
Click to expand...
No different than advertising pictures of a fully optioned out vehicle and stating "starting at $XX,XXX", a price far lower than the displayed model costs. A caption like "ISO up to 51,200" under a picture does not mean that picture was taken at that level, but I agree that clearly that is what they want people to think.
DualSystemGuy said:
I am not asking if we should wait so see the results and I am not wishing for failure..I just see this as possibly misleading advertising...
Click to expand...
Misleading advertising is everywhere though, good advertising is always in the grey area of truth. Nikon is no different than any other company.
DualSystemGuy said:
How would you feel if you responded to an ad showing a nice juicy sirloin steak with the caption "16 ounces beef for three dollars" and when you ordered the dish it turned out to be chopped hamburg...
Click to expand...
Haha this already happens at every restaurant, maybe just not quite to that extreme of a degree - menu items look nothing like what is on your plate.
DualSystemGuy said:
A friend of mine years ago who was interested in history ordered an "old fashioned coat hanger" Turned out to be a nail!
Click to expand...
I have a better idea of what you mean, but still, the same thing happens everywhere. When ever a car is advertised, for example, they always show the best model with all the bells & whistles, fully optioned out and then say "starting at $xx,xxx" or "get yours today for as low as $199/mo"...you get to the dealer and of course it costs twice as much to get anything like the one in the commercials or the posters.

Anyways, I think that image is in fact ISO 51,200. As I said before, a processed downsized image at ISO 51,200 already looks that good on current cameras, it's nothing special. I'm sure it will be top of the heap of the DX cameras as far as ISO performance goes, probably a stop better than current stuff, but don't expect miracles better than current FX sensors. It's entirely reasonable that picture is ISO 51,200 at that size. Downsizing hides noise extremely well.
Click to expand...
are you actually saying automotive dealers are dishonest??? I am so shocked to hear that! :-)
 
Kerry....yes that is the article I was speaking of. I tried to cut and paste the web address and a statement came up stating DPR would not allow me to post it.

Thanks
 
tahoe22 said:
I just tried to post a link to Peta Pixel but the link was refused. Anyhow, for what it is worth and this could have been referenced/talked about before, it is an article posted January 9th by the person who took concert photos for the D500 launch. The concert photos that appear in the D500 brochure appear to be his. In the article he talks about the high ISO.

Thanks
Click to expand...
I have contacted him..he never says directly but from what he has said..those concert photos were NOT at 51,200 ISO and i still say that this is misleading advertising..
 
riman said:
tahoe22 said:
Anyhow, for what it is worth and this could have been referenced/talked about before, it is an article posted January 9th by the person who took concert photos for the D500 launch. The concert photos that appear in the D500 brochure appear to be his. In the article he talks about the high ISO.
Click to expand...
I have contacted him..he never says directly but from what he has said..those concert photos were NOT at 51,200 ISO and i still say that this is misleading advertising..
Click to expand...
Caption below ISO 51200 states, "Exceptional image quality with low noise even at higher ISO settings."

That photo was a "higher ISO setting." Nikon offered an example of an ISO 51200 just below the caption photo, and unlike the caption photo that photo has EXIF data displayed. Who is being mislead? You? The general public? Clearly it isn't you since you don't believe the drummer was shot at ISO 51200. I doubt the general public is bothered by this either, as most of them are not reading the brochure. This camera is targeted at a knowledgeable audience, stop playing dumb.
 
riman said:
Would you agree that if Nikon puts out a brochure and it says ISO 51,200 and it shows a very clean and good photo ...
Click to expand...
Brochures are brochures. Pictures are for illustration only -- they are not reference materials. The brochure does not go into the technical settings and post-processing decisions behind each illustrative image -- and it doesn't have to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top