I noticed a lot of material authored by Erwin Puts. Yeah, it's informative -- but it sounds suspiciously like cheerleading. Is he on Leica's payroll or is his objectivity otherwise compromised?

-- Steven Miller (Steven34@aol.com), June 07, 2002

Answers

Erwin is not on Leica's payroll and his objectivity is the subject of many flame wars.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), June 07, 2002.

without trying to do anyone a disservice, let's not discuss this again. Mr. Puts is a very committed evaluator of Leica gear with very scientific approaches. If one agrees with the conclusions depends on if one accepts the premises of the logic.

I personally read and enjoy his writing/depth of knowledge, and it is up to each one of us to interpret what he states.

No, he is not a marionette of Leica AG.

kindest regards,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), June 07, 2002.

I agree with Pat. Puts is a very dedicated Leicaphile who has taken a scientific approach to evaluating Leica lens. If he sounds like a cheerleader, it's because many of the Leica lens are suberb.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), June 07, 2002.

Go to Erwin's site and decide for yourself.

http://www.imx.nl/index.html

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), June 07, 2002.

Erwin is the only person doing this kind of work. I had been waiting for someone to give us this type of information for over 25 years.

His book, Leica Lens Compendium, is superb and unique. There is no other publication like it. His web site has other essays that add to the book and other topics.

If one has a quantitative turn of mind and is willing to separate opinion from observable, reproducable results, one might enjoy his work. But, then again, maybe not.

I, though, am a big fan. My enjoyment of Leica products would be much less rich were work such as his not available.

-- Tom Campbell (leicar7@aol.com), June 07, 2002.

I believe Erwin is much more objective than many people give him credit for, and perhaps if his lens test reports had quantitative data backing up his technically-worded analyses, no one would dare accuse him of subjectivity.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 07, 2002.

look, we all appreciate what erwin does, but at this point i don't think he would even describe himself as impartial. he is given special access to the leica factory, receives products on long- term "loan," and is generally very cozy with leica. as far as i know, he has never (at least not in the last few years) panned any leica product. he even conjoined his m7 review with a puff piece on the disastrous null series product (which is now being sold at half cost by adorama). i think it is, at this point, inaccurate to suggest that erwin is a neutral camera reviewer. he is more like an official leica tester -- but a careful one.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 07, 2002.

I am most grateful for the tremendous contribution Erwin has made to my enjoyment of things Leica. I'm grateful to many others as well, some of whom would have some differing opinions from Erwin. Being mature people, I'm sure they would all say "long live the difference" (please do your own French translation)

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), June 07, 2002.

This thread is (surprisingly) developing into a bit of a Saint Erwin love-in. So it's time to voice a contrary view...

What devalues Mr Puts "reviews" IMO is that he has an unfortunate habit of ignoring Leica's faults and mistakes. See for example his "review" of the M7 - he completely skips over the blinking-LED issue (which is driving M7 non-DX users nuts). Likewise the easy-to-lose battery cover.

As for his lens "reviews", every single one of them can be boiled down to the statement... "[insert lens name here] is excellent when wide open, results improve to optimum when stopped down to f5.6".

(That's it - you have just read every lens "review" Mr Puts has ever written.)

OTOH, his write-up on various Leica M versions is more even-handed, although again he cannot bring himself to admit that Leica occassionally made mistakes (the M5's lightmeter on a swinging stick, the M5's too-easily bump'able s/speed dial, the poor quality of the initial run of the M4-2s etc etc etc).

-- Mister Anonymous (target@shoot_the_messenger.com), June 08, 2002.

Puts is often quite informative but one should always take him with more than a few grains of salt. Just compare his online reviews of the Hexar RF and M7, especially regarding the AE function on both.

I also have his Lens Compendium book and he can contradict himself even within the very same paragraph. The lens reviews are written like a technical manual as dry as the Sahara. They also give me the impression that he carefully avoids mentioning or skims over the weaknesses of many (if not all) lenses when they are at the wider apertures. He never admits to making any mistakes in his writings and can be defensive to the point of absurdness when challenged.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Andrew if you were one of my students the following would appear at the end of your coments:

1."Puts is quite informative but one should always take him with more than a few grains of salt" This is condescention not qualified criticism.

2."...he can contradict himself even within the very same paragraph" clear examples please.

3. "The lens reviews are......dry as the Sahara" Are you seriously suggesting that emotion would add to their objectivity?

4."They also give me the impression that....." First he is too dry for you now he is giving you impressions. Facts not impressions please. More could be said but 4/10 Andrew try again. At least you signed your contribution.

Anonymous gets no marks at all as he/she was not even prepared to admit to writing such pap.

Now Andrew and Anonymous, will you learn and respond or simply react?

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), June 08, 2002.

Tim, this isnt a class room let alone YOUR class room, get over yourself! Tis is real world not your world.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Sorry Tony, it was too easy but I couldn't resist. Back to Erwin now?

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), June 08, 2002.

My August Professor Tim Gee: This is your humble pupil speaking. I am profoundly sorry for appearing to be "condenscending" to anyone. That was never my intention nor does my scribbling actually read that way. I did not know it's written in this forum's charter that you are the sole member who has the privilege to be condenscending to fellow posters and treat them like your poor students.

Moreover, I won't be wasting bandwidth or violating copyright by quoting specfic paragraphs from Erwin's book. I am sure you have the very means to make the purchase if it is not already in your vast library collection. Just go RTDB.

(Jeez, your very name certainly exudes academic excellence.)

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), June 08, 2002.

I got some useful info from his web site and have no complaints as the info was at no cost to me. The descriptions of lens characteristics more or less jives with my experience of the ones I have shot with. I personally get more out of the "real life" reviews from the people who post their experiences--good and bad-- here on this forum, especially with regards to quirks with the cameras.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 08, 2002.

i pity your students tim -- a writing teacher who can't even spell. i guess you're a teacher for the video generation. in any event, you've earned my "condescention" or as we used to say "condescension."

-- (michel@tcn.org), June 08, 2002.

i pity your students tim -- a writing teacher who can't even spell. i guess you're a teacher for the video generation. in any event, you've earned my "condescention" or as we used to say "condescension." and by the way, i sugest you just ask erwin whether he considers himself to be a neutral reviewer. you will be surprised by the response.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 08, 2002.

I have a slightly different take on Erwin Putts. And since it is a relaxing Saturday morning for me, I’ll take this opportunity to share my opinion ;-)

I think most of the odium Erwin garners from his critics comes from their emotional reactions to his empirical findings. For example, take somebody who has scraped and saved and decides to spend their hard-earned cash on a used, but very clean 28 Elmar. They are very excited to get out and play with their new “toy”. They get their first roll back, and the lens is everything they dreamed it would be. They are happy. Now, two weeks later, they read a press release that Leica is introducing a new 28 Summicron aspherical – and then they read Erwin’s review/comparison of the two lenses. I think in many cases they are upset that there is a new, “better” version of their lens that is not only a stop faster but is the same weight and size as their new “baby”. Erwin has just stated the facts, but the detractors think he’s telling them “Your baby is ugly!” And they then proceed to lash out at him – to shoot the messenger as it were.

Anybody that takes the time to test their equipment empirically, will find that most of what Erwin states is accurate – at least as accurate as we can achieve using simple testing techniques. I don’t have an optical bench to perform my tests on, but I do have a sturdy tripod and some test targets and a flat wall to mount them on. I cannot easily test for de-centering or stigmatism, and I don’t bother to test for coma or curvature, but at least I can test and compare lenses for (relative) resolution, contrast and color-cast. (I’ll not open the debate here on whether or not this degree of testing is even important, as most of us generally agree that what really matters is whether or not the user likes the results they get on film when they use the camera and lens normally.)

Another problem with Erwin’s reports is that it is sometimes difficult to understand the degree of differences he is describing, and if they can even be seen with my simple testing methods above. For example, when I read his review on 21mm lenses, I concluded that the 21 asph was the Leica 21 to own. I had the predecessor, and was happy with it until I read that review. So I bought a 21 aspheric. When I tested it, I was summarily unimpressed with the gains over the non-aspheric. They were indeed present, but for my uses the older 21 would have been more than sufficient, especially factoring in the 50% increase in cost for the aspheric and adding to that I primarily use Leica lenses hand-held. But, in defense of Erwin, his test results were still accurate; it was just that the relative difference was not really significant for my uses. Had I been able to understand the magnitude of the differences he described, I may have made a better decision. I think others have had similar experiences with his reviews on the 135’s. In a recent edition of his private newsletter, he explains that some of the factors he tests for cannot be detected if the camera is mounted on a conventional sturdy tripod, as even it is not rigid enough to hold to the tolerances needed for the test. I believe him.

My last point comes to understanding his claims as they relate to one’s personal preferences. For example, I am currently without a 50mm focal for my Leica. This is okay, as I rarely have use for one anyway, but nonetheless, I want to get a good inexpensive user that I can leave banging around in the bottom of my bag “just in case”. In reading Erwin’s reviews of the VC Nocton, I was initially impressed – he claimed it is a better performer than the ‘Lux, which is a lens I really like. But reading on carefully, I note his last statement issued almost in passing, “The Nokton is quite sensitive to flare and here you need some caution.” Well, that was the deal breaker for me. I have owned two VC lenses, the 15 and the 21. Both were commendable performers, but flared like big dogs if you were pointed anywhere near a bright light source – and I *hate* the presence of veiling flare in my images. So I’ll look on for an older Summarit, or perhaps an older version beater Canadian ‘Cron without the tab that nobody seems to want anymore.

The point being, I’ve learned to read and understand his reviews as they apply to my needs. Erwin is a scientist, and he states the facts. Perhaps it is because English is not his first language that sometimes the nuances of his tests seem to get under or over played and not well understood by his readers. And yes, he is a Leica enthusiast, and yes he probably has a direct pipeline to their marketing department, but I do not feel this qualifies him to be the recipient of the personal attacks he receives form his detractors. I have yet to see one other individual come out and prove him wrong with anything based on an empirical study. IMO, you can rely on what he states, just use some care in interpreting same, and read through the review three or four times before you make a significant purchase.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 08, 2002.

Erwin is a scientist, and he states the facts

No he is not. He is a Dutch banker who likes to measure photographic equipment in his spare time. Big difference.

-- Mister Anonymous (target@shoot_the_messenger.com), June 08, 2002.

Why does one being Banker preclude them from being a Scientist as well? I suggest you look the definition of "scientist" up in Webster's.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 08, 2002.

An Engineer would be a better judge of performance than a Scientist....But the media ie Hollywood etc believes that Scientists are the ones doing alot of the design, development and getting a production line going well.....It is the Engineers that must really walk away from the sweet teat of university/college/research grants and deal with the reality of a production line; tolerances; friday factor; and bad parts from vendors..and non gaussian textbook tolerances; and unbuildable/difficult marketing goals......The production world is not the cozy world of a University; but the real world of producting products with little defects.....

After leaving the university teat and working in the optical, mechanical, & electrical industry; I realized how the University/college system is so far inbred; and away from the reality of engineering........My best profs had industry experience; my worst and less industry experience...........One must have a Phd to teach at my university; after spending so long to get one most work a year in industry and go back university to teach.....Many Phd's I have worked with seem always abit trying to super simplify the real world into equations; which then are solveable...But their simplication tends to make their model not match reality...........I want to puke when I see "scientists" juggling their constants to force their model match only 2 portions of a 12th order problem...the model then is then pure BS.....These non modelable real life problems need to be solved by gathering ALOT of data to see what is really going on.....it is alot of dirty hard work; and the data probably will not fit a textbook model..............so be it; it is reality........

Typically many managers and scientists want to ignore the complexity of a system; they believe somehow that problems will disappear by themselves........As a Engineer one must cover all bases; MAKE LOUD CLEAR REPORTS OF DANGERS; and give a clear paper trail so the fakes/golden boys/pseudo managers are the fall guys; and pay for their ungodly unholy unethical lack of understanding of what is really going on.........

(1) the Space telescope failed the centurys old knife test; but the damn thing was launched; and then found not to focus correctly.....The telescope had been stored in SoCal at 1 millon dollars/month because of the launch delay due to the shuttles blowup; (yet another lets ignore the engineers wisdom)

(2) "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." "America's greatest space disaster could have been prevented. The information that would have saved the lives of the seven astronauts had been presented and then disregarded."

This is the basic problem with alot of managers; they ignore reality; and ignore basic Engineering.........



-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 08, 2002.

Steven: Erwin is a blessing to Leica users. He has spent an enormous amount of time carefully measuring and evaluating Leica lenses in as scientific a way as possible. I appreciate his dedication and he has steered me right on several occasions. The book "Leica Lens Compendium" is a very thorough guide and analysis of basically every Leica lens ever produced. It may be off-putting to some people as Erwin assumes that you remember your college optics course. He doesn't coddle you but puts it straight out there. Some people consider him a Leica cheerleader, I do not. He has blasted several of the Lenses in the past and he is, IMHO, and honest broker. We are lucky to have him.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), June 08, 2002.

First I'd like to note that I'm not and Erwin basher and that I really enjoyed his excellent article about the Noctilux in Photo Techniques a fwe years ago. However, I agree that he is not a scientist. His lens articles are informative as far as they go, but I don't think he does a sufficient job of emphasizing how minor the performance differences are that he's measuring. If he provided the hard numbers, people could make such judgements themselves. More troubling with his results is that he doesn't report the standard deviation for a.) differences in results when measuring the same lens repeatedly (to indicate the consistency of his measuring procedures), and b.) differences among different samples of the same kind of lens (to indicate how much of the reported difference should be attributed to variations with a sample group versus differences between different designs).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), June 08, 2002.

Erwins book; "Leica Lens Compendium" is very good.....I got it last year when it first came out..There is a wee bit of bias towards Leica; but that doesnt bother me the least..All books have some bias; My ancient Kodak books push the great Ektars etc.... there are a few errors in his text; but otherwise it is a good text on Leica lenses... I am keeping a list to send to him in case he brings out a 2nd edition...It is easier for a complete outsider to catch a few goofs..it is hard work to bring out a textbook; one gets blinded in checking ones own work...........

It is almost impossible to get statistical data on lens quality/performance by a third party...it costs alot of money to test just one lens........We are blessed that the Leica is a more consistant brand...Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 08, 2002.

Erwin provides some useful information, but sometimes you get stuff like this (quoted from his own site at http://www.imx.nl/index.html):

On the M7 shutter: "It makes no sense to measure speeds when the camera has just left the factory. You then get an idea of the quality control." What, is the camera supposed to age on a shelf for a few years? Is quality control not important? Does the M7 manual suggest that you bring the camera in for adjustment after you break it in? I understand that English is a second language for him, but the first sentence is pretty clear and pretty ridiculous.

This from his Leica FAQ: "We need to abandon the SLR style of viewing when using the M. Then the technical shortcomings of the M (frame lines not exact, obscured by lenses etc) can be disregarded. But then in his M7 review: "The accuracy of the finder is very high and till 90mm not challenged by the reflex camera." He was right the first time, wrong the second, and contradicts himself.

On shutter lag time "...the current best digital cameras (400 to 1500 milliseconds)..." Wrong. Canon and Nikon both make digital SLRs with lag times under 60 milliseconds, and this was true at the time Erwin wrote his review.

On the new R 21-35 lens; "The range of 1:1.7 seems a bit on the low side and looks more limited than it is in daily use. You need to adjust to the lens powers and do not judge solely from first experiences." Translated from Erwin-speak, this means that if you want a wider zoom range (as offered by Canon and Nikon), it's time to modify your desires. Never criticize Leica gear, it is you, the photographer, who are inadequate and have unreasonable expectations. It "looks more limited than it is." As I often tell my friends, "I'm not ugly, I just look that way."

We can go on with this game of searching for Erwin's mistakes and oddities, and there are many more, but the point is made. He offers much that is useful, but he makes so many errors that you never know what to believe.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), June 08, 2002.

Masatoshi. Most of what you site as "errors" above are just your opinion, which is different from Erwin's. It sounds like you have some kind of axe to grind. I personally have found Erwin's opinions quite useful.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 08, 2002.

OK, Eliot, you're right, I have the unreasonable opinion that measuring a camera's shutter speed right after it leaves the factory is wrong. Can you suggest a better time? Is there an official procedure in the M7 manual? And yes, I have an axe to grind when someone makes frequent errors. I point those things out, and it makes me doubt the credibility of other things they say. The question which started this thread asked if Erwin's objectivity was "compromised." I think it is. Is my citation of actual data regarding shutter release lag time just my opinion? Will you admit that Erwin is wrong?

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), June 08, 2002.

Masatoshi; shutter lag time with cameras really bothers me... I was using my Nikkormat in the 1970's to photograph college baseball..On a lark/whim ; I started to use my old Rolleicord IV ....I got alot better action photos of the baseball and batter (hitter) when I used the rollei with leaf shutter.....This was due to the almost nothing delay; compared to the mirror up delay of the SLR...Kelly

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 08, 2002.

Erwin is not factually incorrect, even in the above quotes. It is not Erwin who makes errors, it is a chronic, narrow-minded misunderstanding of the conceptual points which he attempts to make. For example, it is absolutely clear to me the point he made regarding the testing of the M7's shutter at the point of it leaving the factory. His point refers to testing the M7's ability to stay accurate for many months or many years after leaving the factory. He did not say that it is unimportant to test the shutter as a matter of routine quality control. His points was that it is more telling to test the shutter a long time after the original quality control test. Every single time I've seen these types of editorials against Erwin, the above example is absolutely typical of the level of misunderstanding and it somehow justifies moronic statements like "Erwin must be on Leica's payroll..." or "Erwin just doesn't know what he's talking about." And when he says a Leica lens is really good wide open and improves when stopped down to f/5.6, hey, I gotta secret for ya, he's right. We're talking Leica here, and Leica make great lenses. If you have evidence to refute qualitative statements like this of Leica lenses, by all means post them!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), June 09, 2002.

Forget about Puts, curves of reality etc. Do the test a la Fred Picker i.e open the lens to its maximum aperture and take a picture at infinity of leaves against the blue sky. If the leaves are resolved, keep the lens if does not, well!

-- Tito Sobrinho (z3sobrinho@prodigy.net), June 09, 2002.

I forgot to mention to Kelly that all the sports photography nowadays are done with a SLR and a "big" state of art zooms.

-- Tito Sobrinho (z3sobrinho@prodigy.net), June 09, 2002.

Ok, so Erwin Puts is not God - what a shocker. On the other hand, how many can claim to have put in more time, thought and info than Mr. Puts - not me. Any volunteers?

-- John (johnlktan@yahoo.com), June 09, 2002.

"Yeah, it's informative --"

Suits me.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 09, 2002.

Tito; Re "I forgot to mention to Kelly that all the sports photography nowadays are done with a SLR and a "big" state of art zooms."

I have used a SLR for 3 1/2 decades.....There is a delay due to the mirror..A camera with a shorter delay offers the better chance of getting a shot; unless one has a motor drive......The single shot is like having a single shot Sniper rifle......A motor drive is more like a machine gun...........My photo shoot of the college baseball was getting some photos when the ball is right at the batters bat or just passing by the bat (a strike)......With a single shot SLR such as my Nikon or Nikkormat and my 400mm; 135mm , 105mm etc; one must fire the shutter way before the ball reaches homeplate.....With a motor drive on my Nikon F2 one uses the machine gun to help trying to get the magical photos.....

With the single shot method there is more succeeefull shots........

The same is in shooting contests; most clay pigeons are shot with single shot per pull shotguns or maybe rifles........ I have seen on video tape clay pigeons shot with a machine gun; the success is abit low; the gun pulls due to the shell case ejection.......Several years ago up state here they have places where one can fire a .50 caliber machine gun for 100 dollars..

As for zooms; I am not sure why you say all sports are shot with them...............The vast majority of sports photos are shot by amateurs; such as moms and dads shooting their kids soccer games.........Probably 100 rolls are shot of sports by amateurs versus 1 roll/24 digital shot by pros.......And most all Point and Shoots SLR's are zooms ; so you are correct that most sports are shot by Canon EOS with their base F3.5 to F5.6 aperture zooms.......The non SLR point and Shoots Have also slow lens ; one Olympus 105 zoom is F3.5 at wide; approx f6 at long......

Most super pro Sports stuff uses auto focus and true F2.8 lenses..that is today...When I shot the baseball stuff the fastest COLOR print film was ASA 80; Fuji later brought out ASA 400 in the mid/late 1970's...Vericolor ( I ) might have been 125/160 ??........So for the baseball shots I used old tri-x at ASA400 in the Nikon or Rolleiflex; and also used Royal-X ASA 1250 in the Rollei.................The Rollei is a wonderfull machine; with Tri-X @1/500 @F11 one could get good shots with the 80mm Xenotar; and not worry about the focus much...............

So like a sniper one only had to concentrate on getting a clean shot............One crank; and you are reloaded...........The Rolleicord IV was also loaded so I had extra ammo...............

For extra tight shots I used the 400mm F6.3 Spiratone on my Nikkormat; usually 1/1000 @ F8 to F11....Stop down it worked ok.....For sharper shots I sometimes used a Yellow filter; which reduced the chromatic abberation of the lens.....

This FALL at the local sports complex they started banning all carry bags for security reasons after the WTC Sept 11 event........

One thing the security guards zero in on is Cameras to ban............They like to ban cameras that are SLR's ; and really have no tolerance for the dreaded ZOOM LENS ...Thus an older camera with a fixed lens appears to them as "just an old camera"....So after Sept 11th; I started to use my Leica M3 instead of my Nikon F......................The old Leica M3 is ok with them because it is the same security risk as the 30 dollar P & S cameras.................Zooms and SLRs require press passes; and alot of redtape BS.....So this last year I used my Leica M3 and 105mm F2.5 Nikkor, 50mm F2 Summicron, and 15mm F4.5 Heliar with much success......................Aftr I posted some photos; I got alot of emails/comments about "It is the wrong camera to use"... i think it is really funny that the dangerous toy Canon EOS zooms get banned as a security risk; and a 50 year old camera is allowed; but bothers the Leica group because "it is not the correct camera for sports"

Cameras are just tools; Canon has changed its SLR lens mount about 4 times; but my old Nikkors still work.....They went from the R series in 1959, to the FL series in 1964, to the FD series in 1971, to the EOS series in 1987............For starting a new sports system afresh; the Canon EOS gets it done......But since they are banned as a security risk at the local arena; I prefer to use optics and cameras that I already own and can FREELY use............KELLY

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 09, 2002.

Erwin's web site and newletters are a source of useful information to me at times. I agree with Jack's opinion, though, that Erwin sometimes doesn't give enough information on differences between equivalent lenses that he's tested. The upshot of this can be that someone gets carried away with Erwin's enthusiasm, goes for the latest and most highly specified product that Erwin praises, but finds out later that (s)he's made an expensive mistake and would have been just as pleased with a "lesser" but still excellent alternative.

As Jack says, the Apo-Telyt-M 1:3,4/135mm versus the previous Tele- Elmar 4/135 seems to be a good example. From what users have reported (I am not speaking from personal experience), there seems to be virtually no difference between these lenses for most practical purposes - other than the price!

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), June 10, 2002.

Since I live in Holland and Erwin does also and since he writes for a Dutch magazine, I have had the chance over the last (about) 7 years to read almost monthly or quarterly, a new article by Mr Puts.

His first article I remember was a lengthly one which a lot of scientific data was put to conclude in the end that German lenses were superior compared to Japanese and that Leica, of all German lenses was the absolute best.

Then followed a series of articles. In each he compared all M lenses of a certain amount of mm with eachother. So, all 28's, all 35's, all 50's and all 90's. Very informative and he got a least one very irritated reaction when he wrote that a certain 50mm from the 1950's could not be used for serious photography.

The post on his website about (I think) 40 years M3 was also published by this magazine.

Then followed an article Erwin probably wants to forget. He and another author compared the R7 with Nikon's F 3, together with the 24, 35, 85/90 and 180mm lenses. It turned out that both authors were at certain times, while looking at a slide, glorifying the qualities of the lens they thought it was taken with, while actually it was taken with the lens of the other company. The conclusion was that it was almost impossible to see any differences in the results (the slides) between the 2 companies. There was, however a huge price difference. Erwin thought that this difference was justified because of a better mechanical quality and the fact that, in his opinion, Leica optics offered that wee little bit more in difficult light situations. The other author acknowledged this but still fount the price difference ridiculous.

Compared to other authors who wrote for this magazine, I must say that although Erwin´s articles were informative, they lacked every kind of humor. He always had and has a tendency to take himself very serious. a bit to serious IMHO.

A couple of years Erwin chaged magazines. Since then his articles seem to come from the Leica advertisement department. Nothing to complain about Leica products, always defending Leica, for instance the maximum shutterspeed on the m7. He goes to lenghts justifiying the 1/1000th of a second. And indeed contradicting himself. The most obvious example of this is that the AE function on the Hexar RF makes a photographer lazy, while on the M7 it is a gift from heaven. Peoples opinions can change but this is absurd.

You can see it as this. When a certain function is not on a Leica or a certain product is not in the Leica program, in Erwin´s opinion, you do not need it because the Leica company knows what you need. However, as soon as leica itroduces it, he exalts in praising it but he does not blame the company for coming 10, 20 or 30 years too late with it.

In all his articles he writes that to get the absolute top from leica´s lenses and camera´s you have to put the camera on a heavy tripod while taking a picture. And I always thought that the M was meant to be a ahdnheld reportage camera! So, correct me when I am wrong but when I don´t put my M on a tripod, the result will be the same as that taken with a canon eos or nikon?

I do not doubt his knowledge about Leica or his technical knowledge. I do not believe he is on Leica´s payroll.

To me he looks like a big child, suffering from a minority complex. Always defending his expensive toy and trying to prove to the world that his toy is the best in the world. His best, read most hilarious, article was when he tried to compare his m with a hasselblad, concluding, surprise surprise, that while the texture of the water in the pictures taken with the hasselblad, with both camera´s on a tripod, the leica result was in the end a bit better.

-- Frank (frank_bunnik@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

"I do not doubt his knowledge about Leica or his technical knowledge. I do not believe he is on Leica´s payroll. To me he looks like a big child, suffering from a minority complex." Well said, Frank. But surely you mean "inferiority complex"?

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), June 13, 2002.

Frank... "Amen"!.

I don't hate Erwin, and I think I always love all people from Holland. But Erwin's problem includes this as well (IMO): He does issue us his data tables but there are so many mistakes and missing values that I think he could have improved these over the years. If he has so much contact to Leica (even although he doesn't get a penny for it, it goes), then he could at least have gotten this data, if he wanted to. I can and do myself -- all you need is a phone call or an e-mail to Solms...)

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 13, 2002.