erwin_puts

It is a pity that the members on this list seem to be divided in two groups: pro-Puts and

anti-Puts. It is my opnion that you do not have to agree or disagree with my articles or

statements. You do not have to like me and you are free to think I am being paid by Leica

and get tons of stuff for free and I am only writing what they want to hear and fill in the

blank lines yourselves. Yes, English is my third language and I have never claimed to be a

native and fluent speaker in the English language.At least I try to be understandable.

What I try to do is giving my opinions about leica products, support these opinions with as

many facts as I can assemble and try to be careful in dividing fact from emotion. I may fail

occassionally and I have no problem saying this.

My problem is with persons who put statements in my mouth that are not true. As in this

case: the image area of the lens is commonly divided in sections. The 35mm negative has

a radius of 21.6mm and the negative area is rectilinear. So there is a division in four parts:

the centre (obvious at zero), the edge at 18mm (the horizontal side of the negative), the

corner at 21.6mm. the vertical edge at 12mm. The centre portion of the image is most

often seen as the circle from zero to 6mm (image height), from ther eto the vertical edge

is often defined as the "field" of the image and the area from 12 to 18mm as the outer

zonal area and the rest is the corner and edge. This is the way I test lenses: I check the

performance in the centre portion of the negative, the field, the outer zones and the edge

to corner area. This I have tried to describe in all of my reports.

Then I find the remark by Jay, that I am using the concept of "field" just to make myself

an expert and confusing "field" with 'corner" to be beyond the normal intelligent and

civilized discourse.

I am not thin-skinned as some on this list assume. I am accustomed to critique and when

serious I adjust my behaviour. But the remarks my Jay are below the belt and a disgrace to

normal discourse. And in most situations I let it go. But sometimes I make a comment. In

another discussion there was hevay critique on my Summilux report, but after the

question to give specific details about my errors, there was a big silence.

I could comment in the same fashion: if someone notes that he does not see any

difference between the older and current Summicron in careful testing, I might remark that

this statement proves the incompetence of the tester. But I know how how difficult it is to

do some serious testing that gives meaningful results. I could give some advice, but I am

aware how aggressive this list has become and I prefer to be silent.

Erwin

Dear Jay,

your comments on the photo.net forum about me are beginning to sound like an obsessed

mind, whose elegance of argueing is running quite thin.

As you with your infinite wisdom about optical matters undoubtedly knows, the image

area for a 35mm negative is defined as the image height from zero to 21.6mm. The center

is defined as the image height from zero to six millmetres, the corners are from 18mm to

the edge: 21.6mm. The field is defined as the image height from 6 to 18mm. All optical

programs work work with three heights: zero, 70% and edge or 100%. 70% is the border of

the field or 70% of 21.6mm equals about 15mm. So your comments that the field is

identical to the corners is plain wrong. But who I am to argue with your giant ego.

It may help if you would concentrate of studying books and stop commenting my very

humble and insignificant contributions.

Erwin

Gary wrote in part: �Erwin, It just seems that you endorse every new Leica product with resounding enthusiasm, usually claiming how much better it is than the previous version,..�

Gary, yes I do claim that the current M7 is the best and most userfriendly Leica camera (with the exception of the flare issue, which was noted in my M7 review btw) and by functions and options a great improvement to earlier models, like M6/TTL. This statement holds today, even after the MP introduction.

The MP however, is tuned in the direction of an emotional feeling when taking pictures. Photography is basically an emotional act and nothing else. Many users of cameras care more about technical specs and always want more features in the camera. In my view that is not the best approach hen you are being involved in photography as an expressive activity. Sometimes less is more.

The MP is a camera that on specs does not sound impressive (indeed an M6 look alike), but on handling makes a vast difference.

My �resounding enthusiasm� is a description of that feeling and while my words may seem a bit flowery, that is because this camera deserves this perspective.

There is thin, but clear line between being a blind admirer of a product and giving an impression of what feelings and emotions the user of the product gets when taking photographs.

And yes too, the MP is better than the M3 and your statement that I always find the new product better than the previous one is in this case correct.

Dan wrote in part: �The MP is a pinnacle of the mechanical rangefinder and what is truely miraculous is that is was created and produced in 2003!, As well as 1954!! Think about that for a moment�.

Dan, your observation is correct and I did think about this a long time. As I noted in my M3 review on my site, the M3 has everything you need to take fantastic photographs and even today is an instrument that can be used with good results. There is no need for a Nikon F5 or a Canon 10D to create brilliant images. You need a sensitive eye and some activity inside your grey matter. That is all: a Pentax Sp1000 or an Olympus Pen EE will suffice as a recording tool. Indeed we have come full circle: that I wrote in my MP review: we stared with the basic camera tool (manual focus, aperture and speed settings). More is not necessary. Then the industry, based on user demands started to innovate and brought us all kinds of automation (AE and AF) and in the digital arena image enhancements and image corrections. But for fine photography this is not needed. And we are back to basics again with the MP.

Think about bikes: they are efficient, simple and environment friendly transport tools. Cars seemed to kill them. Look now at the current bike scene. New designs, new materials, new emotions. What is wrong in redefining your product and mission and focus on the time honoured essentials, but with new and improved engineering?

Erwin

As I noted in my M7 report AND in the MP report: the best and most versatile M-camera is the M7: it is the rational choice. But the MP has an emotional charge that cannot not be denied for anyone with a feeling for mechanical and classical products. It is like playing a Stradivarius: using this instrument does inspire you to become a better musician and playing agianst Gary Fisher wants to make yo a better chess player.

Functionally the MP is identical to the M6, as I noted. And it has less options than teh M7. But there is an emotional charge with the MP that will be experienced by everyone who uses the camera.

You are entitled not to believe this. My report reflects my experience with the MP and if you do not like what I say that is fine with me.

I do report what I want to say. If this is not what you like to hear, that is OK, but that very fact does not make my analysis less valid or less meaningful.

Erwin

If I sent someone a PRIVATE letter with copyrighted material and a specific request to hold the information private till March 2. I do indeed expect that the receiver accepts the rules of privacy. Even if the distribution method is electronic. the content is private and no one can excuse himself saying that the electronic delivery makes every document a matter of the public domain and that you are free to do what you want. This is a very naive interpretation of the rights of privacy and copyright.

Erwin

I am afraid, that this picture and its explanation is wrong. First comment:the aspherical element is on lens element 4, opposite to the aperture, and the location has no influenece on the phenomenon described.

Second comment: if you look carefully at the light rays, you will see that they are all radiating from a common point source. It is clear that the rays are emanating from the bright spots themselves. The direction of the rays does indicate that they are coming from the source and not from any specks of dust in the lens.

The simple explanation is this: when a point source is radiating light, you will see these streaks of light rays. Observe a light source in a nebulous environment and you will see the same phenomenon.

What you do see here is simply the very good resolution of this lens, when capturing details.

Erwin

Let me try to make a few things clear. The scientific approach

has two virtues and some drawbacks of course. To concentrate

on the virtues: (one) conclusions are drawn on the basis of

established facts, mostly by measurements and (two) there is a

clear distinction between content and person or message and

messenger. The first is easy: you change or adapt your view

based on ongoing research and new fact finding.You are also

allowed to make mistakes as this is inevitable. But it is much

better to accept that you were mistaken than to cling to wrong

beliefs. (yes I was mistaken at first about the Summicron

collapsible and DR, based on what I knew as fact. When

subsequent research revealed facts that both were indeed

different, I did say so and the correct story is in my book). You

learn by mistakes, not by closing your eyes to new facts.

The second is more difficult. I make a careful distinction between

the person and the statement. I never say: person X said �ABC�,

which is wrong and therefore person X is suspect, an idiot or

whatever ad hominem remark you may insert here. Look at the

Lug archives or in this list too for examples. I always say: the

statement �ABC� is not true and the correct statement is �DEF�.

And I also never extend my remarks to include comments about

any person.

I know it is common practice here and elsewhere to equate the

message with the messenger, but widespread or not, this is

naive to the extreme.

I find Mike Johnston a very interesting person with comments

and analyses that are worthwhile and very readable. That does

not make him immune to making errors or does make him

stand above or beyond criticism. The remark that the optical cells

of the DR are selected by very tight tolerances is plain nonsense

and who ever makes such a statement, can expect to be

corrected. So is the remark that sharp lenses produce poor

gradation. That is nonsense too and even if the Pope would

state this, I feel that such a remark needs to be corrected, as it

gives completely wrong facts about modern optics. This has

nothing to do with MJ or others as a person: they happen to

make the statement and I feel that the statement needs to be

corrected. I carefully refrain myself from extending my comments

beyond the content. I do not think I ever made an unfavourable

comment about MJ as a person. Or ever questioned his

credibility or knowledge or background.

I think Tony is right when he remarks that is nice to have different

viewpoints and philosophies about picture taking in one forum. It

enlightens the readers and should give them food for thought.

The approach to produce a print that glows (MJ) is as valid as an

approach to prodcue a print that sparkles (EP). It would be best if

the discussion would be an exposition of Glow versus Sparkle

with both sides explaining with facts what it is and how to get it.

But stay to facts and not introduce all kinds of mythical properties

of lenses or methodology.

I do not wish this discussion to be a clash between MJ and EP

with votes who is right or wrong.

If Mike feels he is personally harrassed by me, he should

carefully read my comments. If I am wrong in my statements

about DR and sharp lenses/ harsh tonality and suspects I am

doing this to discredit him, he is correct in his assumption. He

should also reflect that I have made these comments in other

newsgroups and even in my book and did so independently of

any person.

I would find it a pity if MJ would draw this discussion about Glow

and Sparkle into a personal clash and confrontation. No one will

profit from this and I think participants in this discussion would

find it more interesting to read about the differences in technique

and approach than to hear about what MJ thinks of EP.

To my knowledge what is being proposed as a method to

produce glow in a picture is an extreme compression of overall

contrast and theefore tonal range, which is contrary to the effect

of producing a print with luminosity and rich tonality. I follow the

method to work at the limit of overall contrast (Dmax 2.5) that the

print can handle and get a gradation of 2 to 3 and even 3.5 to

expand the tonal range and create deep blacks with subtle tonal

changes in the shadows and fine gradation in the specular

highlights. Here modern lenses excel as they are more flarefree

as the predecessors and so hold subtle tonal diferences better

than older lenses.

I always print to 30x40cm and not one observer of my pictures

has ever complained about harsh tonality but always was

amazed at the large range of grey values in the print, the deep

glowing blacks with fine differences in the shadows and

sparkling high lights with again tonal differences to the whitest

base of the paper.

There are a number of factual errors in the discussion about the

Glow.

It is true that the Summicron Rigid and the DR share the same

optical cell, not �head�. It is absolutely not true that the DR-cells

were selected for highest tolerances. There seems to be a

remarkable propensity to give the DR mythical properties. Any

one may believe fairy tails, but the DR is not on a par with the

modern Summicron and I can demonstrate that quite easily with

a hand heldheld side by side comparison shooting with a

ISO400 film. The DR has much higher level of flare, it resolves

less detail, it has weaker separation of shadow details and ditto

highlight separation.

The whole notion that an older lens shows a longer tonal scale

on the negative is somewhat questionable. A photographed

stepwedge with a subsequent densitometer reading can give

the evidence.

A sharper lens is claimed to give harsher transition in tones.

That is mixing up two different concepts. A sharp lens (one with

good micro contrast and high MTF values) can separate small

details more easily, and visually detectible. That is the edge

contrast ( a sharp black-white transition) is high. A smooth

gradation implies that between a black and white extreme there

is an infinite number of gray values that progress in extremely

small steps from white to black. A sharp lens can record small

changes in density more accurately than a less sharp lens, so

by implication a sharp lens can reproduce very fine differences in

brightness betetr than a softer lens. If you need best

reproduction of smoth gradation a sharp lens is the preferred

choice. Older lense do flare and by definition degrade the fine

tonal differences.

The idea that newer lenses have overcorrected spherical

aberration to generate more sharpness is not true either. For

best sharpness no SA is the best option. In fact it is a reduction

of the sum of the residual aberrations (mainly the oblique rays)

that allow a lens to have a highr level of definition. The coating

has nothing to do with the boke story. And the idea that

nowadays coatings are simpified for cost cutting reasons is not

substantiated by evidence. In fact coatings become more and

more elaborate, way beyond he original MC technique.

The whole classification in new-harsh and old-smooth lenses is

missing the essence of tone reproduction.

In there something as a Glow? Yes! But then we have to look at

the classical Daguerrotypies. Or the old large plate negatives.

These silver rich prints had a tonal scale and depth that is rarely

encountered today. What we see as Glow nowadays is simply a

low contrast, slightly unsharp print with a limited scale of grey

values. The advice to produce a print with glow amounts to to

picture a low contrast scene with a flarey lens and overexpose,

underdevelop the film and use low grade printing paper. This

does indeed give you a theoretical long range of mid grey tones,

but so compressed that the changes in density are flattened and

not detectible. As an aside: Plus-X is a thin emulsion film with

very high acutance and thus sharpness. Many tests have shown

that a diffusion enlarger and a condensor enlarger generate the

same tonal range.

<p>

I am a strong advocate for the classical BW analogue technique,

but my approach is that the best way to proceed is by solid fact

finding and comparative measurements.

Jay wrote in part:" But curtain travel at 1/1000 is still about

2/3-stop uneven from side to side, and it was the same on the

M7. Again, I attribute this to the design of the cloth shutter. The

vertical metal shutter in the Hexar and Voigtlanders does not

have this problem. "

Undoubtedly the measurements are OK. But the conclusion is

not. IF the M6/7 shutter were as uneven as is suggested, any M

camera would have a dark band of overexposed area on every

negative. Because 2/3 of a stop is a severe overexposure. But

this is not the case. As I wrote in my M7 report, the M shutter

starts slowly (accelarating from zero). This is compensated by a

wider slid width. So the end effect is that the exposure ove rthe

whole area is correct, as everyone can verify. The measured

slower speeds need to be adjusted withj the slit width to

become meaningful. As is reported now the impression is given

that teh M shutter is off for 2/3 of a stop. This is not true.

The basic principle of the exposure meter is the measurement of the

light intensity of the measured area. As there is only one

measurement, the intensity of the illuminance is by definition an

average value (or an integrated one, which is saying the same). If

the area to be measured has one uniform brightness, the measurement

is simple. If the area to be measured consists of various different

brighness values (some black, some grey, some white), the meter will

produce one and only one value for the total brightness. This value

of course is a weighted average of the various brightness areas.

The area to be measured depends on the receptive angle of the meter,

a spotmeter having one or three or five degrees (depending on

definition) and the classical acceptance angle is 27 degrees. Even a

spotmeter will act as an averaging meter when the object that is

being targeted by the spot consists of patches of varying brightness

levels. The idea of a spotmeter is that you can select a

representative area of uniform brightness as a basis for the

determination of your exposure calculation. If I am very close to an

object and can use my normal wide angled exposure meter to meter an

area of uniform brightness, I am in effect doing a spotmetering.

To be specific now for the M-exposure metering. If I use my 135mm and

focus on a subject that fills the frame outlines and this object

conssts of a large rnage of brightness values, the M-meter will do an

averaging reading of a selective part of the object. This is not a

spotmetering technique.

If I use the 24mm lens and I am so close to the subject that I can

select an area of uniform brightness that fills the wide angle view,

I have in effect a spotmeter reading.

When I noted that the M-meter should be interpreted as an integral

meter, I was referring to these aspects.

Any meter will make a weighted average of the various brightness

values that are falling on its sensor.

What area a meter will measure depends on acceptance angle and

distance from meter to subject.

What the reading is, depends on the range of brightness levels in the

measured area.

The typical use of the M-camera does indicate that the 13mm patch of

the exposure meter will act as an integral meter.

Maybe the confusion is in the reference to the integral meter or

center-weighed metering methods as implemented in Slr�s where you

camn vary the sensitivity of the meter to different parts of the

screen. In a typical classical slr the screen is the substitute for

the area to be measured and when (as in the Nikon 60-40 or 75-25

patterns) the metering cells are calibrated such that they are more

sensitive to a central part of the measured area, the weighting of

the brightness areas may be different, but it still acts as an

averaging meter.

<p>

Erwin

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

You are correct about the shutter curtain speed; it is 7.2 km/hour,

not 72 km/hour. I do acknowledge it and can only say that my

calculator said 7,200,00000 and I overlooked one decimal. My

fault. This quite obvious error gives some people the excuse

they need to discredit my report.

My answer an insult??

THis isn what Kristian asked.

<p>

> Hi Erwin, you have helped me once before and I now need your

help once more.

> I am about to purchase a Lux 35 and would like to know the

actual weight of

> the black version. Is it 250g or 310? And is there a noticeable

weight

> difference between the black and chrome in the field? Thanks

in advance

>

> Kristian

>

>

Here is my answer; more than 5 words, and I believe I could not

add more to it.

***

250 grams. Yes it is, the chrome one feels and is much hevier.

<p>

Erwin

There is no question that the 2/28 is in all respects better than the

2.8/28. Better has to be interpreted as having less residual

aberrations. That is the 2/28 is better corrected for chromatic

aberrations, especially the lateral ones, it has less coma, much less

spherical aberration, less curvature of field. . At aperture 2, the

2/28 is better than the 2.8/28 at 2.8, not in the central area of the

image but in the outer zones. Compare the aperture 2.8 for both

lenses and you will note that the 2/28 has a more even performance

over the whole of the image field, Specifically the rendition of the

very fine detail is visibly more crisp, and this performance holds

over the whole image field with the 2/28 where the 2.8/28 drops in

contrast a lot.

The most interesting characteristic of the 2.8/28 is when stopping

down one or two stops. Now the 2.8/28 introduces a zonal error, that

is the contrast and definition of fine detail in the center area

drops, improves in a zone from 6-9mm from the center and then rapidly

drops. This characteristic is typical of the previous generation of

Leica lenses and indicates a focus shift (spherical aberration) and a

neglect of correction of curvature of field. The newer 2/28 has a

different fingerprint, that is a very high performance in the center,

gradually becoming lower when approaching the corners. At aperture 4,

the new 2/28 has an exceptionally high contrast and an outstanding

definition of very fine detail. The 2.8/28 lens is not that good.

Do you notice these improvements? It is easy to remark that only a

tripodbased picture taking environment and the use of a low speed

emulsion will bring these differences to the fore. That is not the

case. My comparison pictures in handheld shooting show a visible and

important improvement of contrast, and specifically the rendition of

very fine details improved a lot.

Of course a coarse grained APX400 BW picture at 1/15 from a moving

subject in a catch-it-or lose-it situation will not reveal these

differences.

But we talk here about visible improvements that are ready to be

exploitable when you need it.

There is a remark too that the 2/28 is only of interest when and if

you need an f/2 lens. Partly true but this remark does not cover the

improvements of the 2/28 at smaller apertures outlined above.

The Voigtlander at 1.9 is no match for the 2/28: its overall contrast

is quite low at the wider apertures and that is why you would want a

wide aperture 28mm (in fact any wide aperture lens).

Again, the easy answer is that a lower contrast lens can be

compensated by a higher contrast grade or might be of advantage in

high contrast situations.

The general question whether you indeed see improvements in lens

correction and if so, under what conditions, is an extremely

interesting topic.

My experience, for what is worth, indicates that these differences

are more visible that you often are prepared to assume.

It is a bit like learning to taste good wine. At first you do not

taste a big difference, but once you get the knack, you are lost. So

with current Leica lenses too: once you have seen the results (and do

not assume to easily that a tripod is a necessity) and have compared

them at ease and for a longer period with the results from other

lenses, you get the idea. But it takes time: I have series of

pictures of older lenses that are impressive, looked at in isolation.

And series of pictures of new lenses, that are bad and mediocre in

the image quality. Over a longer period however, the new ones

consistenly will win: you need to fine tune your picture taking

abilities to the quality improvements of the lens: that is the

challenge: if you are not willing to improve, than there is no way to

go: even in harsh reportage situations, there are improvements to be

noted with the new lens compared to the 2.8/28. But not always and

not under all circumstances. If you want instant success wit a new

lens, do not buy Leica. These are challenging lenses to use and

evaluate.

<p>

Erwin