Erwin Puts' test reports(closed)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
Erwin Puts test reports not to be taken seriously.Someone who tests new equipment has te be neutral. After reading several of his tests, both on the internet as in Dutch magazines I can only conclude that he is not neutral.
His test of the M7 is nothing but a glorifying essay about who good the M series is and what an enormous improvement the M7 is. After reading the text I can only conclude that it is an M6 ttl with aperture priority and a few (minor) improvements. That he was given an M7 by Leica for a year makes it all the more clear that he is not neutral. A year to practice with this camera, ridiculous. That he defends the dicision to keep the topspeed at 1/1000th by just repeating the factory is for me, further proof.
His test of the 2,8 15mm R lens is made ridiculous by comparing it to the voigtlander 15mm lens. Surprise surprise, the Leica is better. What would you expect from a lens that in Holland will cost around 6.000 euro. The voigtlander costs about 600 euro and for that money they throw in a camera as well! If he wants to be taken seriously, why not compare it with Canon's 2,8 14mm or a similar lens from Nikon?
The same goes for his test of the 21-35 R lens. He compares it with Canon's cheap zoomlens. Just like the Leica lens it also changes aperture while zooming, but the again, it costs only a fraction of the Leica variant. In Holland the Canon lens Erwin mentioned costs around 650 euro. The Leica lens will sell for around 2.500 euro. Why not compare it with Canons 2,8 17-35 or 16-35 mm? They have more wideangle, are still cheaper then the Leica, but at least the are coming closer to Leica's exorbitant price.
Personally, I think Erwin suffers from an inferiority complex that he tries to compensate by using the most expensive 35mm photograpic equipment available. See for example the article on his website in which he writes about the 1,4 50mm planar being chosen by the readers of an English photomagazine as the best 50mm lens ever made. Like a little child he gives his reaction, finishing it with the statement that Leica's 2,0 50mm m is a much better lens. I wonder what he had written if, for example, the summilux 50mm was chosen instead of the planar.
I know Erwin Puts is a kind of hero among Leica users. What else can you expect of a man who writes exactly what they want to hear. I do not doubt his technical knowledge but his tests are a joke, more of an advertorial. By the way, he writes for some years now for Dutch magazines and in all those years I saw only one photo taken by him, illustrating an article in which he needed about 5 pages full of technical phrases to proof for himself that Leica makes the best lenses ever, ending with describing the 35mm, 50mm and 75mm m lenses.
Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002
Erwin Puts is on the pay roll, that is for sure, I have red few of his report, I think he is full of Sh"t, he is so bias to a point that he doesn't even want his face.
-- unni (unihub@aol.com), April 02, 2002.
Damn right!
-- Maestro Logos (maestro_logos@mac.com), April 02, 2002.
Well, I found out a lot about Leica by reading Erwin Putts - more so than in this ad hominem attack. Please concentrate on facts rather than attacking the individual.
-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), April 02, 2002.
What else can you expect of a man who writes exactly what they want to hear - this sums Erwin Puts' reviews and the reactions to them very well.
-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
Yes, I too have a problem with Erwin's bais. Also that he often doesnt present enough proof in numbers or sample photos to show what he is saying. And his writing style is often worse than even mine! But I welcome his write-ups as a valuable source of information. You just have to know to "discount" much of what he writes and try and pull value out on your own. I would like to thank him for his contributions.
-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), April 02, 2002.
Frank,
I prefer to think people are able to evaluate thier sources of information. Are you implying that we are not?
-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), April 02, 2002.
OK David, let's concentrate on the facts...Do you know why AE is kosher only when the camera is an M7 and not the Konica Hexar RF, according to Puts?
-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 02, 2002.
I grab information from where I can, and that includes Erwin on occasion. His paean to the M7 was so overboard it made me laugh, though... despite the fact that I went & bought one myself.
-- Scott Munn (scott@bokeh.net), April 02, 2002.
Crikey, what happened to the idea that people could have an opinion? It is obvious that Erwin Puts is very close to Leica, but to castigate him for daring to have a 'view' is very close to the thought police taking charge. I don't want a neutral test of an M7 if I am thinking of buying one. I want a test from somebody who understands the Leica system and can put the M7 in context.
-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 02, 2002.
Niels, I am sure that people can evaluate themselves. However, when I look around at some Leicasites, a lot of credit, not always due, is given by fans to his tests.David, I am not attacking the person, merely his testreports and his conclusion. As I wrote, I do not doubt his technical knowledge and with the mentioned complex, I only tried to find an explanation for his writing. Here in Holland, I have been reading his articles for a lot of years now.
Oh and Niels, I read one topic recently, I think it was on this forum, in which some people also made some critical remarks towards Erwin. At one point, Erwin himself reacted and the reaction from the Leicafans was as if God had descended form heaven to speak to the mortals. "Erwin, we are not worthy, but speak and we will listen". Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Okay, fair enough. Here's an opinion from a SHOOTER, not a writer, or a Leica stock holder. Nor do I get anything free from Leica, of that I can assure you. I own and have shot with the lenses you refer to. I have bench tested and field tested most of them. I'm not a tech scientist, I'm a photographer interested only in final results. So, in the end any compairison is bound to be subjective opinion ( yours' verses mine), regardless of graphs and charts. I'd love to see a compairison between the Canon 17-35/2.8L and Leica's new zoom. The Canon is, and was, an awful lens for the money. Barrel distortion alone made it a "must sell" item shortly after dropping a load of cash on one. As far as being cheaper, the Canon 16-35/2.8L ain't far behind the Leica at retail. It's sharp for a zoom, but lacks any of the character of say, the Canon 35/1.4L fixed focal length. On the other hand, I've found Leicas' zooms to share similar visual characteristics with their fixed lenses. I've been taken to the cleaners with Canon equipment resale value once to often. My one year old D-30 now has the resale value of A LOT LESS than 1/2 its' considerable purchase price. In 6 months it'll only be a paper weight. Same experience with the EOS-1n RS. Conversely, I've purchased, used for years, then sold Leica equipment for little or no loss. The so called "exorbitant price" mentioned above is when you take a bath on resale. Using that criteria, Canon and Nikon equipment are the most expensive choices on the planet. I'm not all that familiar with Erwin Puts. He's certainly no Hero of mine. Nor are individuals who make personal attacks on the integrity of someone else with an opinion of their own. The only inferiority complex I can detect from all of this is the one being openly exhibited in the initial, uninformed posting. But, hey, everyone has a right to their own opinion, which by definition, is biased.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 02, 2002.
I was criticized (I believe I was "making a fool of myself") for pointing out that Erwin's errors made him less than credible. Another one came to my notice. Erwin states that digital cameras have a shutter lag of 400-700 milliseconds. Canon publishes a lag time of 55 milliseconds for the EOS D1, which was available at the time Erwin published his M7 review. And even though he corrected his obivous numerical errors in his M7 review, it's still obvious that if a Leica can do it, it's great, but if it can't, who needs it? Some people are treating the introduction of an auto exposure M like the second coming of Christ. Suddenly, it opens "new creative possibilities." Please, this is silly. I'll be impressed if Erwin's dismissal of the usefullness of a 1/4000 shutter speed is reversed. He already admitted that there might be some reason to want to use narrow depth of field with wide apertures, but after being caught out with his gaffe about 1/4000 not being useful, will he finally put 2 and 2 together and state that, yes, such shutter speeds may be useful, and, yes, Leica M's still can't do this, and, yes, we might therefore call it one shortcoming of an otherwise good camera? I'm not holding my breath. How does he account for the 1/8000 shutter speed on the R8. Part of the "Leica Philoshophy?"
-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), April 02, 2002.
Does Erwin Puts have an online gallery of his photographs?
-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 02, 2002.
I looked for photos on his sight but I could not find themFrank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Yes, Erwin is close to Leica, enjoying the use of equipment and insider access to new lenses and cameras. And yes, he is biased toward Leica. (Aren't we all? Just look at the name of this forum!) Despite the fact that he is something of a "cheerleader," his reports have a lot of useful information, probably most interesting when comparing one Lecia lens to another. He confirms that the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses for the most part as as good as all but the most recent generation of Leitz lenses, and thus a good value for the money. So don't throw the baby out with the bath, just enjoy his reports, recognizing that he shares our bias toward Leica, and is perhaps too accepting of the stodgey, conservative nature of the company. (I just saw an add for the Nikon FE in an old 1979 camera magazine. Interesting to compare the specs with the M7!) Enjoy your Leica, your lenses, and your life! :+)
-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), April 02, 2002.
Masatoshi, you are right about the AE feature. Critism while reviewing the AE feature on the Hexar RF (makes you lazy and it shows in the pictures) but a "gift from heaven" when reviewing the M7. I did not see it before. Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Oh, Erwin's photos? I think it unlikely that someone so dedicated to the technical would be the best of photographers. Might be a "left brain/right brain" thing. Erwin is not pontificating on composition or aesthetics, and even so, one can be a coach or a critic without the ability to do what one is commenting on. Can we all direct Hollywood movies or play professional football? Yet we can be qualified to discuss the merits of movies and players. Erwin is discussing cameras and lenses, not photographic art.
-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), April 02, 2002.
Say what you will about Erwin Puts, but I'll take his opinions and prose over 98% of the drivel on this forum any day of the week. Of course, this assumes I write about 2% of this forum's content ;^)
-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 02, 2002.
Who should we trust to do lens testing if not Puts? Pop Photo? Give me a break!I don't care how much bashing people do, Puts provides far more information about Leica lens performance than any other source I've seen. I don't get hung up on language. I also think I'm smart enough to take it for what it's worth rather than get anal retentive because it's pro-Leica.
As for his photos, who cares if they aren't art? That's not the point. The point is to evaluate the gear, not the photographer.
-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), April 02, 2002.
If, as someone stated, the people who canonize Erwin do so because he writes what they want to hear, it's equally clear to me that the people who crucify him do so because he writes what they don't want to hear. It's an easy out to just brand Erwin a shill and dismiss him without amassing the same kind of knowledge that he has, and then actually try to prove him wrong. I often disagree with Erwin, but his house is made of brick and it takes more than hot air to blow it down.
-- Jay (infinityt@aol.com), April 02, 2002.
Erwin is a better photographer than practically all of those who have posted pics on this list. He is not a jpeg addict and prefers carefully crafted traditional printing to web publishing. I have seen some beautiful bw work of his, on big enlargements, and they show great craftsmanship. He masters the whole process, from shooting to printing, with utmost care. I cannot prove this point here since he does not scan 'n post, but his prints are very good illustrations of Leica quality.That said, Erwin is a Leica fan and has decided to focus his excellent technical skills and his curiosity on all things Leica. That is his choice, and if that opens doors for him in Solms, then more power to him. Most of his comparative work on non Leica lenses is on lenses targetting the Leica market segment or refering to the Leica architecture (Cosina, Konica, etc), with very few exceptions. When I read Erwin's tests, I know I am reading from within the Leica community.
There is a wealth of knowledge being shared thanks to his research, and all Leica fans should be grateful to him.
That said, I do add a pinch of salt to his editorial output. His usage of superlatives, and the repetitive construction of many of his articles, are irritating.
But that does not allow me or anyone to question his honesty, his dedication and his capabilities.
-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
I am mystified by this unprovoked ad hominem attack on Erwin Puts and obvious troll. What does this comment have to contribute to the forum about Leica cameras or photography?Sure-Edwin is biased about Leica, but so are most of the enthusiasts on this forum. The guy's English is not faultless and is obviously a foreign language to him, but my Flemish or Dutch is a lot worse ;-). I think most diligent readers can sift the wheat from the chaff in his articles for themselves.
And as for the insinuation about his photographic skills, Erwin used to have his fashion photography linked to his Leica site until a couple of years ago. I'm not an expert but he seems to be a competent professional fashion and glamour photographer from the evidence of his work.
-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 02, 2002.
Erwin's articles would not be so bad if he limited himself to the internet. However, I live in Holland and he writes for a magazine here. It is still my opinion that tests in a magazine MUST be neutral, that the tester uses Leica in daily life himself is no problem to me, just as long as he reviews it neutral (like another magazine here does). Otherwise I just take some company brochues from the shop, compare those and buy the article.Still, I think it is pretty silly that he contradicts himself on the AE function and that someone who thinks so seriously of himself and/or his testing methods compares amateur equipment to professional stuff. Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Personally I think Erwin performs a great service. For me, it is just another source of information, I prefer to make up my own mind about things. If you don't agree with his findings, so be it (I know I do from time to time), criticize his findings/facts, not his use of the English language, his position or his moral.Here is what Erwin send out in his newsletter with regards to Erwin bashing that went on on other sites/communities:
----------------------------
My M7 report has been the source of some controversy and has triggered some individuals into expressing themselves in remarkably rude language. Some of them can be found in the greenspun list, some on the Lug and other lists. B.D. Colen is one of more outspoken individuals who seems compelled to believe that I am not able of writing sensibly about Leica and that I must be paid by leica to write that prose. there are some others who have automatically accepted as fact that I am on Leica¹s payroll. I got some emails by persons who want to stay anonymous (out of fear!) that one is not allowed to quarrel with Mr Colen and when doing were forced off from the lists they were on. This is indeed a sorry affair. As soon as the power of facts and arguments has been set aside and the power of rhetoric and authority (³I am a Pulitzer Price Winner and therefore what I have to say may not be questioned²) takes over, we have returned to the Dark Ages. Enough of this: find below my answer, which explains and illuminates my role in the leica community.
While I do not feel in any way obliged to answer B.D. questions, which in my view are crossing the line of the privacy of the individual, I will present here my position. I am an independant business consultant since 10 years (before that I was a university researcher/teacher, and a high ranking governement official), who works at the moment for three Dutch companies, all with a yearly turnover of several billion dollars. My area of expertise is reengineering legacy software and business process analysis. My company is a one-person company and I earn all of my money with these activities.
My second area of activities is photography, where I am as an independent journalist enrolled as technical editor to one of the bigger Dutch photomagazines. My contacts in the photoindustry are based here. I am taking pictures too and with the combination of picture taking and photojournalism I write numerous articles about the technical aspects photography for several European magazines. I am involved in this area of activities for over ten years and have written by now I think about a hundred artices, some of which are Leica related.
I started using and writing about Leica 16 years ago as a hobby. As my testreports in the magazines about Leica equipment (done fully independent from Leica) became quite popular, I felt the need to delve deeper into the Leica world and contacted the Dutch distributor. He provides me with all the equipment I need for testing. I sign off a paper and return all equipment after use. I do not get any product for free, nor do I get any favours. Every adjustment to my own cameras or lenses is paid for by me as a normal repair service. If I want to buy a Leica lens or body I buy it in Holland and pay the normal price. All my lenses and the one M6 I own now have been paid for by me. I finance this with the fees I get from the articles I publish, which are not Leica related in many cases. Obviously I visist the Solms factory regularly. From my home in Holland to Solms is a distance of about 300 miles and when I travel to Solms I always take a hotel. I travel by car (my own), pay for my own gasoline and pay for the hotel. I have never been in an hotel paid for me by Leica. The one visit I made to Portugal (by airplane) was paid for by me, including the hotel.
Leica is of course aware of my actions as a journalist and my reports and analyses about leica products and do support this with providing information. This is not unique: all writers about leica get this info: Brian Bower I have met in Soms several times and he is given the same info as I get. And I know that every journalist in Solms can talk to whomever he wants about whatever topic. There is a free flow of information and that is it. I have never received from Leica any gift or camera or lens or whatever material product (excepting the leica calendar which I receive free, as all journalists get one for free). I would be very stupid and so would be Leica, if the relationship would be jeopardized if they would try to influence me or if I would let myself be influenced in my opinions by giving/accepting gifts. I am surprised that B.D. and others are so naive as to assume that opinions and testreports can be 'bought'. Maybe their view reflects on their own attitude in these matters. Leica is a very responsible company and so am I and so are most companies I deal with. I do not think tat multi-billion dollar companies would rely on experts who are not reliable or responsible. I know that operating in the public domain and having acquired a certain status, has its responsibilities and makes you vulnerable to the kind of suspicion of which B.D's list is the latest incarnation.
All research activities and time invested in doing the research, accumulating the facts and reporting on the findings are done in my own free time. My website is paid for by me, the Newsletters are free and done in my spare time. I am aware that I make mistakes, that I do not know everything about leica and that I sometimes change my mind as most thoughtful people do, when they are confronted with new evidence or new insights. I am also aware that there are some who have become almost personal enemies and will never fail to point to every inconsistency in every sentence or opinion that I have written and who challenge my integrity and expertise on every possible occasion. In their place I would try to do something more constructive than flogging a hrse that is in their view already dead.
I know from thousands of emails and personal contacts that my views and opinions are valued as a reliable guide for buying decisions for leica equipment and I do know that my research findings into the ultimate Leica quality are appreciated by many. Leica knows this too: when people talk about Leica, my name pops up regularly. The converse is happening: because I know that my position would be untenable if I would let me be influenced by Leica PR or if I would ask favours from Leica that might even in the remotest way question my independence, I am lost.
So I would be a complete asshole if I would let this happen even in the slighest way. I often disagree with Leica: I am not convinced of the optical quality of many R-lenses. I have written about that in my book and on my website. I am not convinced of the quality of several M-lenses. The same goes for the bodies: I have my remarks and comments. That is known by Leica: that has never limited their cooperation, nor have they ever tried to influence my views. In fact they know and do appreciate that I have independent views and can back it up with facts and figures and yes, pictures too. It is in their own best interest to get independent and reliable and fact based feedback on their products.
Do you really assume that Leica wants only blind and uncritical confirmation about their own achievements. How naive can you get! There is nothing in my M7 report or for that matter in my lens reports, that is not supported by experience, measured or calculated facts (I made a mistake in the calculation of the speed of the shutter curtains: it is 7 km/hour, not 70 km!) and I always make a careful distinction in presenting my own views and opinions and describing facts. Leica are justifiable proud of their products and achievements and very well capable of profiling their products as they seem fit. They really do not need to 'bribe' some Dutch guy to become their parrot.
Erwin
-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
FrankThanks for pointing this out. We are all a bunch in numbskulls who took everything Erwin said as gospel! Your criticisms are old hat, there is some truth in them, but if you can afford to do better please do so and then we can read and criticize your efforts. Erwin has an opinion -- so what? You have an opinion too -- which one is right? Have you tested the lenses you mention next to the equivalent Leica lenses? I thought not! Who has? Give me the information and we woulD all rush off and read it. At least Erwin is making an effort to actually generate some real data he has gathered before he makes an pronouncement. He is interested in Leica products so will probably never spend a lot of time time testing Pentax lenses. He is entitled to his choice. If you want to believe that Leica lenses are inferior to other big name manufacturers then show us the data and I for one would love to find out. Look at all those people who write Nikon guides and Canon guides -- they don't spend there time comparing the marques with others -- there is only so much time in the day.
As I say, this is old criticism. I appreciate his attempt as imperfect as it is: look at this site or any other to see what differing views people have about the same products: it is pretty hard to get any real data from all the mumbo-jumbo we all spout. At least he tries and in my experience he is not far off the mark.
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Erwin Puts is a wonderful resource. He is pro-Leica, nothing wrong with that. If you don't find his work beneficial, then disregard it. Bashing Erwin accomplishes nothing. The Leica is a photographic tool. Will it do everything photographic better than all other cameras? Of course not. Choose the best tools for the job that you wish to accomplish. Will I rush out to purchase an M7? No, I do not desire a battery-dependent Leica.
-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), April 02, 2002.
This thread is wonderful, as all of these Erwin Puts threads tend to be.It's like driving slowly past a bad car wreck. Morbid, sad and irresistible.
-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
I think its fine to criticise someones reviews, especially if you can do better. I don't enjoy reading personal atacks however, especially where the other person isn't even around to respond to them-(By the way,this kind of statement is a personal attack : "Personally, I think Erwin suffers from an inferiority complex that he tries to compensate by using the most expensive 35mm photograpic equipment available".)That's a cheap shot in my mind, as you don't know the guy or his photography skills.
-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 02, 2002.
i have been looking at this site for sometime and just posted a question. the responce did not answer my original question. some of the people here tend to take more time answering their own questions in their head than to carefully read the original question and answer politely.kristian was correct you guys would never do these thing in person unless lubed by alcohol.
can someone point me to mr puts website?
-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
How sad to make Erwin Puts such a villan.All tests are subjective. I like the idea he is a Leica user--its simply impossible to truly use and understand the Leica system,unless one has a long experience. Tests are a guide!The famous Popular Photography tests are the worst. Advertisers run the magazine.Photodo on internet is part and parcel of Hasselblad.Their tests are interesting....my Pentax 50mm equal to Summicron.Reality,no.I like Puts.I respect his opinions and he does give praise to Voigtlander/Cosina lenses.The Konica system cannot be taken seriously.Why? Konica starts and drops their customers as they feel...no parts,no service!True right now the Ae model is getting pushed but wait when sales reach saturation point.They will. Spend the extra and get the real thing.
-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
"Personally, I think Erwin suffers from an inferiority complex that he tries to compensate by using the most expensive 35mm photograpic equipment available."Don't most of the folks here use the most expensive 35mm photographic equipment available?
-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 02, 2002.
All, this was very thoroughly covered on the LUG, where Erwin was completely trashed. This seems to me a redundant argument. No one is making you read his material, reports, tests or opinions (but you still do).If you don't like Erwin Puts, read elsewhere. There are lots of opinions out there, your's included. Both have some merit. Both deserve respect.
-- Mark A. Waidelich (mark_waidelich@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Please don't ever let this thread die....
-- Haba (haba@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
This is (partially) a ridiculous E. P. bashing again perhaps accelerated by frustrated Leica- users Just try to analyze this complex theme as the LEITZ and LEICA history of lenses and lensdesign for yourself. For a start choose simple focal lengths like 35 or 50 mm. It´s a giant job and I would not dare to start it! I read Erwin´s findings especially on the older designs with a lot of interest and it brought back my appreciation for some of my goodies which cought dust in various drawers. I enjoy the LEICA Lens Compendium and frequently haver a look on his website. There is always something new to discover.To Allison Reese: The address is: www.imx.nl/
I do not know how to install a clickable link. But it is a beautiful short address. Easy to type. You find it as well under links of the LEICA Co. site and LHSA- sites.
To Pat: thank you for pointing to Erwin´s answer.
Best regarding
-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), April 02, 2002.
Frank. On the contrary, it is who should not be taken seriously. You provide a long diatribe which is nothing more than an attack unsupported by any facts whatever. We can make up our own minds about what to believe without your "help" such as it is. People on this site tend to read literature critically, and that includes your senseless diatribe.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.
I’m more than stunned by the tone of Frank, our Dutch correspondent.Though I think Erwin is sometimes biased on a systematic pro-Leica attitude, I think it is unfair to pretend he is paid by someone. By the way, who after having used the Leica M system, is not found of it enough to be somewhat biased?
His bias is IMHO due to a fairly long use of the Leica M system as his personal equipment. We are all liable to have difficulties in adjusting to another system ergonomics at first.
As a user of a Hexar RF, after being a Leica M body user, but also using in parallel a medium format SLR, I think his commentaries are not objective as I had no difficulties to adjust to the Hexar RF ergonomics after shooting about a roll with it after the unfortunate dismiss of M5. But I understand his commentaries are more linked to a long exclusive use of M bodies as personal equipment than anything else and specifically I don’t believe he is paid by Leica or their Dutch importer in anyway. I’m ready and willing to discuss this point with him if he wants so.
Now, on what points do I disagree with him besides this one ?
On the lens tests:
I think he is right in telling us the modern Leica lenses are the best available small format lenses. But I don’t think he tells us with sufficient emphasize the edge of these lenses over the other ones is sometimes hard to see in practical shooting. Don’t misunderstand me here, he tells us this fact more than once but in such a way that you need to read thoroughly his text to understand it… For example he rates very objectively most of the V-länder lenses he tested as equal or better than the corresponding earlier generation (pre-aspheric) lenses from Leica but what is missing IMHO is a clear mention the edge of the newer Leica lenses above them only surfaces at full aperture and (or) with a slow film and sometimes only when using a heavy tripod… So he indirectly eludes a fundamental question: do we have to pay a very important supplement to get a lens which is unquestionably THEORETICALLY better but which will not show this superiority in practice ? Clearly some focal lengths which will be often used in a very critical way at full aperture need to be the best you can afford and Leica lenses are a guarantee to obtain the best possible results. Now, some others might not be so critical. The best example coming in mind is the 21 mm as the use of a V-länder will probably practically impossible to tell from a Leica aspheric one most of the time, because we seldom use such a lens at full aperture and most users will probably use at least a medium speed film (100 ISO – ASA) more frequently than a very slow speed one. Knowing the V-länder lens performs equal or better than a pre-aspheric generation 21 mm Leica, only a few of us will really need to afford a 21mm f/2.8 from Leica for which the accessory finder price equals the one of the V-länder lens plus its finder ! …
On the M7:
My criticism will be probably considered of a more personal nature. When Erwin tested the Hexar RF, it is true he let his point of view on the alleged “laziness” the AE will bring to the photographer. It was at a time the M6 TTL was the only available model in the Leica range and I saw more than often on this forum the same kind of commentaries. When Erwin tested the M7, he simply discovered a rangefinder camera he is perfectly used to (the ergonomics are very similar between a M6 and a M7) with AE doesn’t bring any laziness in taking pictures. The clue to the apparent effect of this alleged laziness he saw on his pictures with the Hexar RF was simply the consequence of his difficulties in adjusting with a camera having ergonomics he wasn’t used to, not of the AE option… This proves what my experience has told me since years, provided an automatism is used ONLY when required and can be fully neutralized if not required, it doesn’t bring any laziness per se. Moreover, as aptly put by Erwin in his M7 test, it can bring more concentration on the subject provided it is used according to its real capabilities. Erwin was simply victim of a widespread belief in Leica user world which is manual and mechanical are ever better…
Another point I disagree with Erwin is his conclusion. I don’t think the M7 to be a real turning point in Leica M body history. When the M mount replaced the screw mount and when the viewfinder replaced the separate rangefinder and accessory finders of the Leica III series, it was a turning point. When the M 5 appeared (despite it was not a success) it was a turning point with the introduction of a state of the art TTL metering system. We can also consider the return to the M4, through the M4-2 and then the M4-P, was a turning point (but for the worst) in M series history as not a single M camera was to appear then which could be described as state of the art in technology. The M6 was more a return to a modernized version of the concept inaugurated by the M5 than anything else (e.g. : a TTL metering equipped M camera) than anything else and the TTL variant a very shy attempt to modernize it again due to the very slow synchronization speed.
Unfortunately the M7 doesn’t show any real go-ahead to fill the ever broadening gap between the state of the art technology and what is packed into a M body… To pack what in this state of the art technology should have been useful to the original concept of rangefinder small format cameras (which, by the way excludes the AF) some major redesign should have been undertaken. The awkward loading system should have been eliminated. The electronic shutter should have been a modern one not only by providing a faster top speed but – much more important – a high synchronization speed maintaining the TTL flash all the way. And, finally, the metering system should have included a real spot meter in manual mode and a modern matrix in AE mode instead of simply mimicking the Hexar RF manual + AE + AE lock system. Not to speak about the advantage of modifying the loading procedure to an interchangeable hinged backdoor eventually to be replaced by a digital full format high definition digital back when available.
So to say, for me the M7 is something of stop gap measure facing the competition of the Hexar RF (and to a lesser extent of the Bessas). By the way its R&D costs are certainly hardly the fortune some people described here, it looks more a minimum adaptation of the original design. It is not by any mean the decisive evolution a lot of Leica M users waited to for years. We have a saying in France which well describe the situation of the Leica M series: “to be well seated between two chairs”. The M7 is just that: It has no more the advantages of a fully mechanical M6 TTL and it brings nothing state of the art for an electronic camera body. So it is severely judged by those who think manual and mechanical is a must and not attractive enough to broaden its market and satisfy those still striving for the best major “instant recorder” they are dreaming of. Considering its price is twice the one of an Hexar RF for very few advantages if any (the shortcomings of one are generally compensated by the advantages of the other and vice-versa) I think it is hardly a milestone in Leica M development. Again, I’m ready to discuss the point with Erwin should he considers it interesting.
But he should be assured of my sympathy in front of the vicious attacks he is the object of.
François P. WEILL
-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 02, 2002.
Francois, I disagree with some of what you have written, but at least you have a well reasoned point of view. What Frank presents is just a diatribe. As far as the M7 is concerned.Erwin may have been overly enthusiastic when he presented this camera as a great leap forward. It is probably an incremental step rather than a great leap, but enthusiasm isn't a serious offense. Leica itself is more circumspect in describing the position of the M7 relative to the rest of the M line. Yet they should be given credit for retaining what to me is among the most important attributes of the M system, the soft shutter and "instantaneous" release.
Konica Hexar RF did well in providing faster shutter (to 1/4000) and hgiher shutter sync speed, but the killer is the shutter is positively loud compared to any Leica M and there is the delay in shutter release (about 125 msec for Hexar vs 20 msec for Leica M7) that is my main complaint with the Hexar. The feel is much different from the Leica M feel, though I'm sure one gets used to it as you say.
The M7 retains the horizontal nearly silent cloth focal plane shutter but now adds electromagnetic governors to accurately time the shutter speeds, so they are more accurate than any previous M (including M6- TTL). This is no mean feat. Erwin explains that to attain 1/2000 sec may be possible with this system but: 1) the accuracy would be iffy (because it requires only a 1 mm slit); and 2) the shutter break force wuld be that much greater, adding additional noise.
No doubt. Leica could give us faster shutter speeds and a faster sync speed, but the price would be a completely new and noisier shutter (probably much like the Hexar RF and Contax G2). So they took a compromise route and gave us a more accurate electronically timed shutter. Your call. Would Leica users accept the noise to gain the additional speeds? Should they have replaced the shutter completely? Or is Erwin wrong and is it possible to create a silent shutter with 1/4000 sec or higher top speed and fast sync speed? Since I'm not an expert on these issues, I'll take his word until I hear otherwise... From an expert.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.
That he was given an M7 by Leica for a year makes it all the more clear that he is not neutral.Without commenting on the quality of Erwin's report, the above quote is an unfounded assumption which was easy to make given Erwin's writing style. Erwin did not state that he had used the M7 for a year, only that he was commenting on an M7 that had been used for a year. He didn't use it fot that long.
-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), April 02, 2002.
gee, a biased journalist, what a surprise! no one here must spend any time watching dan rather.
-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), April 02, 2002.
While having no particular feelings on the specific equipment issues at hand (I'd rather shoot good pictures with crummy equipment, with UV filter in place, than crummy pix with good equipment), I find it intensely amusing that after lambasting "the power of rhetoric and authority", Mr. Puts spends almost the entirety of his response asserting his own resume in that direction.
-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Please don't get me wrong.
I was not implying that photographs might be the ultimate goal of camera making, errr testing, errr discussing... help me...!?! Nor was I implying Mr. Puts thought so... I was just curious to understand what makes his output so meaningful to you, that you spend hours to scroll down this amazingly over-blown threat (oops - nice one!) to this very humble post of mine. I for one am more easily to be impressed by creative output than by bean counts. But I might miss the point. Happy shooting.
-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), April 02, 2002.
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is defined here as an "unpleasant state of tension." Individuals will try to relieve this dissonance in one of two ways:1.
Increase the number of consistent cognitions - In order to assimilate inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will increase then number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance. This often involves rationalizing...i.e. myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing worldview. In most instances, the offending inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual seeks out semi-logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent cognitions. The reader must understand that we are not talking about
2. Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions - Individuals change their attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more consistent with mode 1 thinking. When presented with logic or facts inconsistent with their worldview,
-- Mike (mstanly801@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Actually Greg I don’t spend any time watching Dan Rather. Did he comment on the M7 too? I’ll have to start watching the guy, thanks for the tip.
-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), April 02, 2002.
Michael. Actually, I have to disagree with you. We know Erwin is a "fan" of Leica, otherwise why would he have a website and publish a book on Leica. This must be evident. In addition, I know his scientific and technical background, since he has published it. This is very useful information. If I am reading his reviews, I can factor this into my interpretation.What I don't know is the scientific and technical background, if any, of his critics. In addition, since in most cases their criticism is more of an attack with out supporting facts, I don't know how to interpret it. Would a critic ever be sufficiently honest to tell us if he (or she) is currently using Leica. If he has previously used Leica and quit? If he has had problems with Leica Co. in the past. Finally, which of Erwin's claims does he dispute and on what basis. This might help me evaluate the validity of the criticism. But this information is rarely, if ever, provided.
If anyone claims Erwin is paid by Leica to write nice things, show me the evidence. If not, they shouldn't make slanderous accusations. Frankly, I find the quality of the these anti-Erwin diatribes speaks for itself. These comments do not apply to those individuals who may respectfully disagree and state there reasons. I am talking about people who post diatribes with unsupported accusations.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.
Hi Eliot,You write
>> Francois, I disagree with some of what you have written, but at least you have a well reasoned point of view. What Frank presents is just a diatribe. <<
I fully agree with you on that point.
>> As far as the M7 is concerned. Erwin may have been overly enthusiastic when he presented this camera as a great leap forward. It is probably an incremental step rather than a great leap, but enthusiasm isn't a serious offence. Leica itself is more circumspect in describing the position of the M7 relative to the rest of the M line. <<
I have never said it is an offence at all… I just think Erwin is not exactly objective here. Something which is not very “professional” for a tester…
>> Yet they should be given credit for retaining what to me is among the most important attributes of the M system, the soft shutter and "instantaneous" release. <<
I fully agree there, never said the Hexar RF is perfect…
>> Konica Hexar RF did well in providing faster shutter (to 1/4000) and hgiher shutter sync speed, but the killer is the shutter is positively loud compared to any Leica M and there is the delay in shutter release (about 125 msec for Hexar vs 20 msec for Leica M7) that is my main complaint with the Hexar. The feel is much different from the Leica M feel, though I'm sure one gets used to it as you say. <<
I fully agree with you it is a shortcoming of the Hexar RF. But in most actual photographic situation the nose will be masked by the background noise anyway. So it is a critical point only in some limited occasions (unless you specialize in live entertainment photography for example). My loudest complaint against the Hexar RF v.s. the M is more related to the finder magnification of 0.6, very near to the M 0.58 version which – I think – is a not as a good compromise as the 0.72 M standard version…
>> The M7 retains the horizontal nearly silent cloth focal plane shutter but now adds electromagnetic governors to accurately time the shutter speeds, so they are more accurate than any previous M (including M6- TTL). This is no mean feat. Erwin explains that to attain 1/2000 sec may be possible with this system but: 1) the accuracy would be iffy (because it requires only a 1 mm slit); and 2) the shutter break force would be that much greater, adding additional noise. <<
If Leica is going to retain the M6 into production (which appears to be the case if you have read Allen’s message upon he received an e.mail from leica), I see absolutely no reason not to go forward even with a somewhat noisier shutter bringing many other capabilities in many different situations…
>> No doubt. Leica could give us faster shutter speeds and a faster sync speed, but the price would be a completely new and noisier shutter (probably much like the Hexar RF and Contax G2). So they took a compromise route and gave us a more accurate electronically timed shutter. Your call. Would Leica users accept the noise to gain the additional speeds? Should they have replaced the shutter completely? Or is Erwin wrong and is it possible to create a silent shutter with 1/4000 sec or higher top speed and fast sync speed? Since I'm not an expert on these issues, I'll take his word until I hear otherwise... From an expert. <<
I have absolutely no doubt on the fact Leica has the technical staff giving them the ability to do so (I mean a high speed, high sync. shutter, for a silent one I know no more than you) . However, I don’t think Leica’s directorate has given them the freedom and the funds to achieve such a goal. As I see the things, after the negotiation with Konica failed, Leica was forced into a move to counter a competitor which might have some shortcomings, but is a very valid one with a price about half the one of an M body. Hence my opinion the M7 is just a stopgap… I think you will agree with me a total redesign of the M body would have necessitated a much more important investment and probably a more important developmental delay.
What bothers me so much as an “ex-M user” is the fact I don’t see any justification for the difference in price between the two bodies. More important even, the Hexar RF embodies much more potential development in it without a major redesign… TTL flash was probably not incorporated because Konica didn’t want to issue a M killer during a phase they were negotiating with Leica. Its removable backdoor qualifies it for a digital conversion should the need arise (besides it makes it a really quick loader when compared to an M). And it won’t be very difficult to convert the finder to more magnification (Say 0.7 by chance). I understand too the original Hexar had a silent mode for the motor which was discarded on the ground of patent violation. I don’t think it would be insurmountable to use a similar system for the frame per frame advance in the next generation. Finally, To have a more immediate reaction of the shutter release is not a very difficult issue. So the future of the Hexar RF seems to be brighter, moreover considering its retail price. Most potential rangefinder users (as those having it already in their bag) consider it something to be used as a complement of another system or conversely use the other system as a complement. It means cost efficiency is important to the user… Leica MUST modernize in depth its photographic department to regain a much wider market and uses the present trend toward small format rangefinder revival…
I bought an Hexar RF because I couldn’t buy an M6 TTL and thought another second hand M5 was too costly (because of the “pesky” collectors) and you must understand my retailer has to lend an Hexar RF to me to convince me to buy. So high was my pro-Leica bias. I wanted to wait to see an eventual M7 to go back to Leica (finder magnification and – to a certain extent – more silent operation… Anyway I prefer manual advance) but the M7 deceived me to a great extent… I will probably one day buy an M6 TTL 0.72 (I won’t buy a 0.85 because I wear glasses)… But an M7 surely not and I’ll keep my Hexar…
Friendly
François
-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), April 02, 2002.
Francois. You have some good arguments. I don't really care about the TTL either (that's why I never bought an M6TTL), but when I looked at the Hexar RF at my camera dealer (when it first came out), the noise (from both the shutter and the film advance motor) bothered me. Even if many situations mask the noise, it bothers me. One of the reasons I like Leica is the near silent shutter. This is one of the things that makes Leica unique. And I do photograph in very quiet areas from time to time, but even if I don't, I just don't like the noise: same is true of most AF SLRs.You mentioned the 0.6 VF mag. This is nearly the same as Leica's 0.58 VF, which I would never choose to buy. I bought the M7 0.72, the same as my other M users. For me, if I got a different VF magnification, it would be an 0.85, since I don't really like the really demagnified scenes.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.
since we beaten the Erwin critique to deaths, I guess we're continuing to talk about HRF vs. M-series. IMO, the Hexar RF is almost a fantastic piece of equipment, I WANTED to buy it, but after playing around with it I found the viewfinder too dim and the magnification too small for my taste. Shutterlag didn't improve things, thus I ended up w/ a M6 TTL. However, I'm pretty confident that Konica will not improve their Hexar line further, so don't get your expectations up. cheers,
-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
Puts Redux:"The lens features excellent resolution and contrast when wide open, which improves to optimum sharpness and micro-contrast when stopped down to f5.6. Although older versions of the lens are very good quality, the latest version is a clear improvement."
Memorise the above paragraph and then apply it to every Leica lens. :?)
-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 02, 2002.
These ad hominem attacks and juvenile innuendos are an embarrassment to the Forum. Everyone by definition has an opinion and everyone with an IQ over 80 should be able to realize this and assess his reports. He is not a cheerleader, a paid Leica spokesman etc... Erwin just happens to be fascinated with Leica and his reports are filled with alot of very important information. They certainly have played a PART in many of my equipment purchase decisions. We should be grateful to have Erwin around.
-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), April 02, 2002.
WOW, I am impressed that this topic hasn' t overboiled. (if it is safe for me to say). The last time this same thread appeared their was a bit of conflict and my opinion was against E.P. But since then I've had time to think. Whether he IS or he IS NOT on Leica's pay roll shouldn't matter. Like all magazine editors, he is subjective and if his reviews weren't interesting and inciteful, why are we all contributiong to this post?Like any review I take his with a grain of salt. And if there are some here that feel his information is "misleading and non-truth", produce your own reviews with proof that what he offered is false. Only then can I believe he is not creditable.
"Innocent until proven guilty?"
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Kristian: welcome back!I use Erwin as a source of information. But, trained in journalism, I know never to accept ANYTHING based on just one source - so I filter what Erwin says against my own knowledge and other sources (such as this site). In the old Reagan-era phrase, "Trust but verify".
The WWW makes it easy for anyone to set themselves up as a self- appointed expert on this, that or the other - so you need to be even more careful about checking and testing web source(s) - whether they are expressing an opinion about a lens - or about a lens reviewer.
Opinions are a dime a dozen - give me facts and evidence if you really want to impress me. Erwin's not a particular hero of mine (OR a villain!) but does anyone have nice clear counter-evidence that shows any of his reviews/opinions are INCORRECT?
Ewin got a free M7 for a year - and it is valid to be cautious, therefore, in accepting his review. Erwin sez (e.g.) that the M7 is quieter than the M6
- and in my experience he is correct - it IS quieter. Facts are facts - regardless of who pays for them...
-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 02, 2002.
Strange how many Leica users are quick to be critical of the very company that feeds them. What hypocrites :(Alfie
-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.
Alfie -- "Strange how many Leica users are quick to be critical of the very company that feeds them."What the heck does that mean? Leica pays you to use their gear? How do I get on the gravy train? Last time I checked, I paid for all my own gear, and for the stuff I bought new I paid rather handsomely. For that, alone, I have the right to say whatever I damn well please about the equipment I use and by extension the company that makes it. What do I owe Leica Camera? Nothing.
The notion that Erwin Puts is on the Leica payroll is flat out ludicrous. Why would a company as cash strapped and marketing deficient as Leica pay someone like Erwin Puts when they can get his consistent, predictable, unqualified raves for free?
If Leica had gone ahead and rebadged the Hexar RF, rest assured that Erwin Puts would have said it was the most impressive appliance since the Hello Kitty toaster.
The guy's a fan and, yes, Dr. Knapp, a cheerleader. So what? Most of the folks around here are too. That's why the anti-Erwin stuff is so irritating. But to anyone not besotted by the "Leica Mystique," Erwin's "reviews" are not particularly meaty. If he can't bring himself to even subjectively compare Leica products to the offerings of the major brands (at least one of which he professes to admire, at least in private), he's just preaching to the converted.
But he's ours and we like it that way.
-- George T. (davecasman@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
It's always those that stick their head out that will be critisized most. Erwin is a great resource for information, as is Doug. Doug has the same thing, the only thing he writes is that Leica is great (ok a very few exceptions). So now let's critisize Doug...:-).
-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), April 03, 2002.
Just to make one thing absolutely clar: I never wrote that Erwin is on Leica's payroll, nor have I ever thought of that myself. He is just not neutral. It is not bad to be a fan of a particular brand. I myself am very fond of my Hassalblad equipment. However, there is a difference between being a fan and worshipping.In Holland we have a saying: "High trees catch much wind."Erwin claims a certain authority, he is bound to get reactions positive and negative, to what he writes.
The explanation someone offered for his different opinion in AE on the RF and the M7 is IMHO ridiculous. Furthermore, if you do make comparing tests, test similar equipment to get a realistic result. You simply can not expect a lens (inclusive of a camera) of 600,00 euro to perform on the same level as (you may expect) from a 6.000,00 euro lens.
After reading the reactions here, it does look very strongly to me that some people just don't like any negative comments on their hero.
Oh, I did sent Erwin a mail recently but I just got a very short reply that did not answer my comments.
Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.
Let's cut to the chase. I make ads for a living. One universal truth about human nature is that people like to reinforce their purchase decisions. ( a vast majority of people reading ads already own the product ). This is particularly true about emotionally driven BRANDED purchases like cars, clothes, and yes, high-end photo equipment. The fact that people are seeking out the information on a specific brand usually means they've already EMOTIONALLY narrowed the field to the brand(s) they desire, and now are seeking rational justification. Product reviews serve the same function as ads do in this regard. They help sort out the emotional drivers and/or reinforce decisions. Most people on this forum have already sorted out their brand preference for Leica. So, suprize!, they're fairly loyal. They may rationally debate the merits of various offerings under the Leica umbrella, but the emotional brand selection has been made. Old verses new, M verses R, darkroom verses desktop, 6 verses 7, zoom verses prime, etc....all are personal decisions under the Umbrella of their Leica brand preference. Mr. Puts provides a basic service to Leica owners or intended owners. He subjectively, as well as objectively, sorts through complex issues that others don't have the time or expertise to undertake themselves. While not perfect, it none the less is an invaluable resource for discriminating buyers. Those of you who think all this is Bull----!, take a look around you. Unless you live in a cave and wear a loin cloth, you ARE brand sensitive buyers that make emotional purchase decisions/ reinforcements every day of your lives. Including you Frank. I know, because I probably influenced one of your decisions myself.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 03, 2002.
Sensible writing Marc but I do not know how you influenced me. Frank
-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.
I don't think Erwin is anyone's hero here. But he does work hard (and voluntarily) at his Leica pages, and it does make for interesting reading.Contradict what he asserts, but leave aside the personal criticism. I don't think anyone is asking for any more than that.
-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 03, 2002.
A small point, but Frank seems to go on about it. It is no surprise to most of us that Erwin tests the new 15mm R lens against the 15mm VC lens. For any interested Leica user or interested party this is the obvious test since these are the only two lenses currently available in the 15mm focal length that fit a Leica camera. He did test the earlier 15mm Super Elmar and the 15mm Hologon in his book. It has little to do with the price issue in itself, but all Leica owners would like to know whether they actually got more performance when they spent more money. His result is not surprising, but personally I think that if he had found the VC lens superior he would have said so.
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.
On this list there is an extensive thread discussing the seriousness of my reports and as an extension the seriousness of my person. As most contributors have noted, none of my reports has been discredited or refuted by facts. When Mr Nemeng notes that my reports on Leica lenses are boring, he may be right from his personal viewpoint, but as far as I know he has never presented any credible evidence that disprove my analysis. He may not like what I say, but that is another matter. On the other side when someone comments that the Noct is far better than the Canon 1/50, he is dead wrong. When designing lenses with such wide apertures, there is obviously room for different philosophies of aberration balancing. The Canon may perform differently, as it does, than the Noct, but to note that one s absolutely beter than the other is a bridge too far. I have used both lenses, so I am aware of the differences in fingerprint and behaviour. But I am sure, some one will now claim that I am being paid by Canon to say this. Now on the topic of me reversing statements about the AE function when discussing the Hexar and the M7. This is quite peculiar and shows the real intentions of the critics. Some one noted: why is AE kosher on an M7 and not on the Hexar. Some one else repeated: critisism while reviewing the AE feature on the Hexar and a gift from heaven when reviewing the M7. But what did I write actually in the Hexar report? Below is the passage referred to: “The transfer of controls to the camera and the mood of becoming more passive in the photographic act is in my view the fine distinction between the Hexar and the Leica. Photographing the same objects with a Leica and a Hexar in quick succession underscores this difference: with the Leica the work is harder (more to think and act), but your act blends in with the subject and you are part of it. With the Hexar your work is easier, but the remoteness of the controls acts as a filter between the object and yourself. Let me say, that you become a bit lazier when using the Hexar and that shows in the pictures.”Where did I make any negative comments on the AE function of the Hexar?? Where did I change my mind when discussing the AE in the M7??“The remoteness of controls” is not a substitute phrase for AE or is it? Here we have the game of the critics in a nutshell. They attribute to me statements I never made and then start bashing me for what I did not say. The goal is not correcting errors or fact finding, but simply erecting strawmen to set on fire, which seems to be a great sport for some. And so I can continue. Some one noted I used An M7 for a year and therefore I am biassed. In itself using a camera for a longer period is a better base for a serious report. BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT: I noted that I could use a camera for several months that had been in use for over a year. But that is conveniently overlooked by the critics. And BTW had I used the camera for only a few days, the critics would have raged that I am biassed to write a report with that little experience.
Erwin
-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), April 03, 2002.
“The transfer of controls to the camera and the mood of becoming more passive in the photographic actThe more auto the tool becomes...the above statement rings more true.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 03, 2002.
Mr Puts wrote in part: When Mr Nemeng notes that my reports on Leica lenses are boring, he may be right from his personal viewpoint, but as far as I know he has never presented any credible evidence that disprove my analysis. He may not like what I say, but that is another matter(1) the name is "Nemeth" - "nemeng" is my company name
(2) at no time did I say your reports were "boring". Instead I implied that they are merely more-or-less identical. :?)
(3) you want evidence to "disprove your analysis"? Okay, here's an example - the 16mm Fisheye-Elmarit R - a lens I know very well. The review you have of it on your www site is incomplete and misleading in that you do not mention the poor performance of the lens at apertures f2.8-f5.6, and also forget to mention the flare the lens can be susseptible to.
Contrast your Puts "review" at:
www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/lensreports/FER-16.html with the review I wrote for Doug Herr's site at: www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/16r28.html
(4) Although I personally have issues with your "reviews", I have kept these reservations out of the FAQ, where I make an effort to be either neutral or else faintly complimentary.
-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 03, 2002.
Frank, You inquired as to how I may have influenced a decision of yours... Chances are better than even that you've selected/use a brand I created or directed the advertising for. My profession is to influence purchase decisions. And I'm not even attempting to be neutral about it like a journalist such as Mr. Puts. If you drive a car, eat margarine, use a cleaning product, put gas in a car, drink pop ( soda), beer, wine, even water, gone to an ammusment park, have money invested, wear clothes, glasses, or under wear, travel, etc.,etc.....well almost anything save the air you breath, and ironically cameras. And I've done the same on a world wide basis as a member of an international ad agency. Mr Puts is very neutral by comparison. Without people like him the Ad Sharks would be completely free to roam your mind. You can scream your independance from these influences until hell freezes over, but you'll turn right around and be influenced anyway. Just look around your home. And I take back something I said about Mr. Puts. He is a hero to me. He, and those like him, are a counter balance to a multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to NOT BEING OBJECTIVE when influencing your purchases.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), April 03, 2002.
Hello all,I like Erwin Puts's reports. I also like Erwin Puts, though I've never met him, and probably won't. Erwin is a volunteer, and it is a universal truth that volunteers will get dumped on more than paid professionals. (I know this as both a writer and an editor--I'll never volunteer to edit another literary magazine pro bono again!)
I find Erwin's stuff fair minded. He is an enthusiast, and the enthusiasm is there in the reports. It's a "Hey, wow look at this!" sort of enthusiasm, rather than a "You ought to buy this immediately" enthusiasm.
Largely thanks to his reports--but also because of other information-- I got my 35/2 ASPH. I got a VC 28/1.9 instead of the the Leica 28/2 ASPH but do note the dust inside that he noted.
I am not always in agreement with Erwin. I think he went a bit over the top on arguing that Konica, Leica, Voigtlander lenses ought not be mixed between brands. I use Leica lens on my Hexar cheerfully. I am also not quite as enthusiastic about the Konica 35/2 as he is. But agreements, disagreements are all a part of life.
I appriciated Erwin's M7 report. It told me the essentials I needed to know. I think it is exactly the camera for my needs.
One thing about enthusiasts vs paid professionals--the former seem to take more chances, are not afraid to be quirky, and are freer with personal opinions. This is not to say that Erwin doesn't have a professional grasp of his stuff. He does. Just doing it for fun adds that extra sparkle to his work.
-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), April 03, 2002.
The above i wrote has nothing to do with the debate.But it does show that Erwin has a photographers soul.Best of luck Erwin.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 03, 2002.
The assertion that "Someone who tests new equipment has te be neutral" is balony and really has never been the case. That said, Erwin is a leading authority on Leica and Leitz optics and there are very few people around who could claim to be more knowledable regarding optics. Stop! It doesn't do anyone any good to scream about how he's wrong about this, wrong about that. Frank's opening post here twists and mangles Erwin's intent to the point of absurdity. These attacks against Erwin are stupid, unfounded and quite lame to the very extreme of the word, and this thread is now closed. Sorry folks. Let's move on, please.
-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 03, 2002.