Erwin Puts' test reports<b>(closed)</b>

[kristian dowling]

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?

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

"Innocent until proven guilty?"

[andy_piper2]

Kristian: welcome back!

 

<p>

 

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".

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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?

 

<p>

 

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

 

<p>

 

- and in my experience he is correct - it IS quieter. Facts are facts -

regardless of who pays for them...

[alfie wang]

Strange how many Leica users are quick to be critical of the very

company that feeds them. What hypocrites :(

 

<p>

 

Alfie

[george4]

Alfie -- "Strange how many Leica users are quick to be critical of

the very company that feeds them."

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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?

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

But he's ours and we like it that way.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

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...:-).

[frank_bunnik]

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

Oh, I did sent Erwin a mail recently but I just got a very short

reply that did not answer my comments.

 

<p>

 

Frank

[fotografz]

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.

[frank_bunnik]

Sensible writing Marc but I do not know how you influenced me.

Frank

[msitaraman]

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.

 

<p>

 

Contradict what he asserts, but leave aside the personal criticism. I

don't think anyone is asking for any more than that.

[Robin Smith]

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.

[erwin_puts]

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.�

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

Erwin

[Allen Herbert]

�The transfer of controls to the camera and the mood of becoming more

passive in the photographic act

 

<p>

 

The more auto the tool becomes...the above statement rings more true.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

Mr Puts wrote in part: <I>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</I><P>

 

(1) the name is "Nemeth" - "nemeng" is my company name<P>

(2) at no time did I say your reports were "boring". Instead I implied

that they are merely more-or-less identical. :?)<P>

(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.<P>

 

Contrast your Puts "review" at:<P>

<A HREF="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/lensreports/FER-16.html">

www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/lensreports/FER-16.html</A>

with the review I wrote for Doug Herr's site at:

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/16r28.html">

www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/16r28.html</A><P>

 

(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.

[marc_williams]

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.

[Alex_Es]

Hello all,

 

<p>

 

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!)

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

[Allen Herbert]

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.

[tony_rowlett2]

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.

[douglas_li1]

The technics of his essays are good though...

[william_kazak]

<p>I don't own any Leica gear right now although I had a three lens Leica CL kit in my past. I have always enjoyed reading Erwin Puts. He always seemed to be an extreme authority on Leica but with an opinion all of his own. Honestly, I don't understand why Leica lenses cost so much. I guess the Leica mystic is so very compelling to many. Also, I never knew which Leica lenses were considered "the best". The "fastest" does not equate to the best in my opinion. With Leica into digital now, newer Leica lenses are arriving which further muddle the situation for me. The older Leica lenses created for film bodies have got to be different than the newer offerings for digital. So, which is the best and why? Lots of money to spend if a wrong lens choice is made. I think Lloyd Chambers makes extensive comparisons of the Leica lenses. I don't think Erwin Puts does that. I am not a leica fanboy but I do enjoy reading about lenses and lens comparisons and their history and use. The quest for the best is compelling history; both modern and ancient history. Happy shooting.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Twelve years has completely changed the landscape. At the time of this post, Leica was claiming a quality digital M Leica was impossible, and the R series film SLR's were still viable.<br>

Digital now dominates as far as new equipment is concerned, and new lenses are aimed squarely at digital use.<br>

Erwin has become deeply involved with his publishing ventures, has withdrawn from the fray and seems to only submit very thoughtful and considered opinion and test pieces on line. <br>

Self testing of lenses is much more immediate and useful using digital, to evaluate our concerns while we still recall what we were thinking about when we took the picture. Only Dorian Grey has the same attention span he had 12 years ago. <br>

The Leica and RF Forum itself is less frenetic and crazy, more accepting of non-Leica gear, and doesn't have to think much about R series. It's not moribund, but pretty quiet. </p>