HERE IT IS: Erwin's Leica M7 essay!

[christopher_goodwin]

There is something so deliciously pompous about Erwin and so

astonshingly thin-skinned that it's really difficult to stop oneself

from posting something just to needle him. Makes me feel like

I'm in school again, annoying a grumpy, puffed-up, utterly

humourless, know-it-all teacher! Ah, happy days.

 

<p>

 

By the way, has anyone ever seen any of Erwin's photos? Those

on which all this exhaustive scientific research is based?

[ken_prager]

Tony, I agree with your comments completely! All the bashing is

uncalled for and it's also lacking in basic human dignity.

 

<p>

 

Erwin, I hope you'll visit this forum again! I enjoyed reading your

report on the M7, as I have numerous other reports you've written in

the past. I admire your dedication to the world of Leica!

[tony_rowlett2]

Mr. Goodwin, here's the problem. You're continuing an attack on a

person who is respected in this field. I've made the point here that

it is unacceptable on this forum. You're blantantly breaking the

rule, in effect saying, "Screw you, Tony!" You're also grandstanding,

which only makes you look like a coward who hides behind a keyboard.

What is it that you hope to accomplish besides making me lose valuable

contributions to my forum? Don't be a jerk. If you disagree with

Erwin's report, tell us where you disagree with it and maybe why. If

not, fine. But stop the nonsense, OK?

[ronald_wills]

Bravo Tony.

[msitaraman]

Tony, well said!!

 

<p>

 

Fair critique and challenge are great in any forum, but casual

vituperation is not. Erwins points may well be open to challenge and

contradiction, but he is not fair game for personal abuse and slander.

 

<p>

 

Besides, I don't see that any one of these self appointed Erwin

bashers has produced Leica Pages and review material even remotely as

comprehensive as what Erwin has. Easy to criticise when the only work

you do is to dash off a few abusive lines on LUSENET.

 

<p>

 

Tony, why not delete these angry and unhappy posts, quickly, before

they poison the atmosphere? Leaving them around for a week or so

surely changes the mood and character of this forum. This used to be

a pretty civil and happy place...

[mark_wrathall]

Tony, you are correct to take a position against the sarcastic tone

of my first post. I should have considered my arguments and presented

them maturely the first time. The Forum shouldn�t descend into flame

wars.

 

<p>

 

Are we still allowed to strongly disagree?

 

<p>

 

Erwin,

I felt I was reading an infomercial. I sincerely felt this review

does you no credit. I recognized your efforts and knowledge in my

first post.

 

<p>

 

You have a well founded reputation as being a authority on Leica's,

but such blind devotion to Leica as this essay showed risks your

credibility. You can't be both an independent reviewer and the

marketing department at the same time. I would like to suggest Phil

Askey�s reviews on DPreview as an example of objective journalism.

 

<p>

 

If the M7 is a worthy product, it must stand on it's own strengths.

The Leica M is a design which heavily compromises many area�s of

functionality, to optimize a few others. Anyone who uses one accepts

this trade off. To sell it�s limitations as features benefits no

one, but is the source of the Leica Religion.

 

<p>

 

To me the piece that did the most damage to your credibility was the

paragraph justifying the M7's 1/1000 top shutter speed. You had

already given a thorough technical justification for it. It is

clearly a compromise driven by technical decisions, to then justify

that by indicating that 1/4000 is really needed, denies one of the

true strengths of Leica, fast lenses, sharp wide open, with excellent

Bokeh.

 

<p>

 

Another example was the statement devaluing the Hexar RF for it�s

small line-up of lenses, when the M mount is the reason for it�s

existence.

 

<p>

 

The incorrect facts I jumped on, (more than 50 years use of a 1954

camera, the shutter curtain velocity, the relationship of 1/1000@5.6

to 1/4000@2.8), were easy targets, which you should have caught

during your proof reading.

[msitaraman]

Good points, Mark!

[raymond_tai]

I am actually looking forward to Erwin reviewing the 21-35/3.5-4

Vario-Elmar, the bigger news for me as an R user. The M7 isn't even

out yet and folks are jumping on Erwin who actually used it for

liking it too much!?! I will buy an M7 a year from now when the bugs

are gone and prices level off because Leica has fullfilled my wish

list for a standard brass top, separate on/off switch, more accurate

shutter and coated finder window. This is my dream M6 and it is here.

[christopher_goodwin]

By the way, has anyone ever seen any of Erwin's photos? Those

on which all this exhaustive scientific research is based?

[raymond_tai]

I don't think photographic talent is a prerequisite to hardware

critique.

[msitaraman]

He has removed his portfolio from his Leica site, but I recall from

my browsing some time back that Erwin Puts is a very capable

commercial fashion and glamour photographer in the Netherlands.

[michael_kastner]

Here's an oldie (not sure if it's a goodie)... a while ago I too

looked at all of his stuff and remembered always seeing his last notes

in a text of lens discussion, like for example:

<blockquote><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=-2>All test

pictures made on Kodachrome 25 and 64!!</font></font>

<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=-2>Copyright ©

1997-1998, Photosite All rights reserved.</font></font>

<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=-2>Author: Erwin Puts

email: <imxputs@knoware.nl></font></font>

<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=-2>Last Updated: Tuesday,

September 12, 2000</font></font></blockquote>

Seeing as how none of those pictures (indeed mentioned there) were

ever actually shown, and no links were apparent, I asked him where it

was all at. Never got a reply from him.

[christopher_goodwin]

Ray. It is not a question of Erwin's photographic talent. God

forbid that he should be a great photographer as well! That

would be altogether too much to bear.

 

<p>

 

It is simply a matter of being provided with some kind of objective

evaluation of the basis on which his exhaustive and rigorously

defended scientific - or even non-scientific for that matter - test

results are determined.

 

<p>

 

Here is a direct quote about Erwin's lens testing evaluations

from the great man himself, on his web site.

 

<p>

 

"These reports are capsule versions of more lengthy studies of

leica lenses. Every report is based on field tests with slide and

BW film from ISO25 to 3200 of common subjects like cats,

artifacts, landscapes and a very skewed selection of some

representatives of the human population. Field tests are

controlled and reproduceable sequences of pictures in order to

compare and evaluate results. In addition to these results, an

optical bench, consisting of a projection test pattern has been

used to study a number of optical properties. And MTF graphs

are used to put all of these data into perspective. " Erwin Puts

 

<p>

 

That represents an extraordinary battery of tests. Magnificent. But

has anyone actually seen any of these "controlled and

reproduceable sequences of pictures"? And exactly how, for

instance, does he use the MTF graphs - have we seen those

either? - to "put all this date into perspective?" I have absolutely

no idea, and while of course I believe him and am completely

prepared to accept them as the gospel truth, and indeed may

use them for my own meagre Leica purchases, I sometimes find

myself wondering if I am a complete idiot. Am I?

[david_kelly1]

I am confused by the phrase "an optical bench consisting of a

projection test pattern". Is that all an optical bench is?.........

[dan_brown4]

I am really sorry and I offer my personal apology to Erwin Puts for

the rude behavior of two contributors here.

 

<p>

 

Erwin has contributed so much to enrich the Leica world, and

has done so with no financial contribution from the likes of me. I

enjoy his papers, his web site, and now his occassional posting

to this forum. I pray that they continue.

 

<p>

 

These 'critics' offer nothing of the kind.

[david_smith12]

Mr Goodwin,

 

<p>

 

In the scientific world when assertions are made by someone, the rest

of the world seeks verification. Verification is the key to

scientific discovery and thought. Without it, you have nothing.

Just an anectdotal result. My be absolutely true, may not be.

 

<p>

 

So do some tests yourself. Rather than carp about Mr. Puts

personality, you can test the issues you raise yourself. If your

results differ, post them for verification. Have them stand the

scrutiny of the public.

 

<p>

 

This has been done in science for eon's.

 

<p>

 

I disagree with some of the editorial perspectives Mr. Puts has. I

use the Hexar RF with Leica lenses. I am completely satisifed. I

get fantastic pictures (when lucky) and don't care a whit about

anyone else's view of "compatibility."

 

<p>

 

But my views aren't science, just opinion. And my views take nothing

from the views, statements, assertions, and findings of Erwin Puts.

If I were to challenge him on any technical issues, I'd better have

data, pictures, and findings. None of my findings would include

words like pompous, ego, love with, or other emotion laced statements.

 

<p>

 

Yes, I concede his M7 report is laced with subjective statements.

And he had his math incorrect when developing an analogy about

shutter speed. And it is not off limits to point out these issues.

Heated argument and debate is great. Personal attack, unilateral

personal attack, is uncalled for. I do not see Erwin Puts returning

any derogatory attacks to those that have been less than courteous.

 

<p>

 

Therefore, right or wrong, correct or in error, he's the gentleman.

[christopher_goodwin]

I would like to apologise to Erwin and other members of the

forum for my rude and childish posts. Erwin's research has

always been extremely useful for me and other Leica users and I

hope very much will continue to be in the future.

[kristian dowling]

I think this post should stop here. There is an old saying we

should all remember and maybe consider- including myself. "If

you haven't anything nie to sy, don't say it at all".........or at least

express your opinion with more respect than what is shown

here. Isn't it so funny how we all are so heated up over a

camera/company- "Leica".

[michael_kastner]

Christopher, I think it is truly nice/correct that you offer your

apologies, maybe even somewhat overdone that you mention rudeness and

childishness.

 

<p>

 

Kristian, I think this post should not stop here. The old saying "If

you haven't anything nice to say, don't say it at all" is of course

okay, but... in my opinion, although Erwin's writings are always

interesting and useful for some of us, they still are, at the same

time, often somewhat subjective, mistaken, and hard to understand.

 

<p>

 

"Subjective, mistaken, and hard to understand" things all in

themselves are however not the end of the world, but... again in my

own opinion, no bad reason to say we don't love this that or the

other judgement posted, especially when it comes to our decision of

buying something brand new and totally new on the market. And that is

what it's all about here.

[rolo]

"I do not see Erwin Puts returning any derogatory attacks to

those that have been less than courteous. "

 

<p>

 

You don't? Then I guess you don't subscribe to his newsletter.