At 05:58 12/01/01, Tony wrote:
>. But Nikon's figures, unqualified as they are, tell us
>absolutely nothing useful at all, except that someone in marketing thinks
>we're a
>bit gullible. Of course if they read lists like this, they'd know better :)
Actually in thinking about it, it is worse than that - they should be open
to consumer legal action. If they state an unqualified figure for Dmax,
then when measured by some "reasonable" process it should meet that
figure. With the likelihood that it will not, this would mean that they
are just plain lying, and therefore should be open to action through
consumer protection laws. I agree that the LS2000 does not appear to meet
it's stated figure just by observing significant amounts of noise in my
scans, as you state in another post. So why do they get away with making
what seems to be a plain untrue statement which is designed to affect a
would-be purchaser's decision-making?
I assume it is not just Nikon who make outlandish claims, but from what we
have heard from Polaroid, they may be a more conservative and actually have
some more-or-less justifiable measurement basis for their lower claims to date.
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
