Chris Weeks on the ZI & ZM 50/1.5 & 35/2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for the link.

I like Chris Weeks photos a lot and appreciate his writing, he's not one who only writes about lens resolution in lines per millimetre, and never makes real photos.
 
he's certainly not a man of big words, and honestly some of the photos he uploaded are no big deal. But definitely better than the average lens test shots 😀 And some are really great.
So i just think he should write less and post more shots instead😉

And his whining about the lab scans... For gods' sake, if he's sucha big guy how comes he can't find a lab that does proper scans for him.

So, since everybody seems post his oppinion, i posted mine too 😉 After all, it's his blog, he does what he wants.
And after all this is a forum so we can discuss him as we want to 🙂
 
I like Chris Weeks, he talked me into getting back in to film, and through him I learned about rangefinders, a new way of shooting, and also RFF. Don't know what disparaging references to RFF in that blog the OP is refering to, read it twice and the only time RFF was metioned was as a link to find sellers of the ZM.

I liked the review, a good blue-collar real world test of the camera. I stopped at Ace Photo this afternoon to check one out.....🙄

Chris is a 'jet-setting LA hipster" on his blog, when you have an off-blog email correspondance with him he's just a really really NICE guy without all the pound-doggy F'bombin' style he writes with on his blog.


for what it's worth....
 
csxcnj said:
Don't know what disparaging references to RFF in that blog the OP is refering to, read it twice and the only time RFF was metioned was as a link to find sellers of the ZM.
Click to expand...
I recall a reference to "fondlers" in there somewhere - though my memory may be playing me false (he has a go at his favourite targets resonably frequently, so I may be thinking of a different blog entry). The other (re: MTF freaks) was actually directed at Edwin Puts, not here, so my bad for being over-sensitive (if that's what it was). I generally like Chris Weeks too, even if he occasionally goes a little too far OTT.

...Mike
 
The hipster dufus writing style is distracting. But the guy clearly uses the gear he's writing about, so that provides a lot of credibility not always seen in web reviews (remember the idiots on Luminous trying to use the new Zeiss Sonnar on an M8). Shame Weeks has to cop that puerile "I gotta be cool" silliness.
 
That was a good write-up. I was asking myself why someone was linking his blog, my opinion of the man not being very charitable, and yet by the end of the piece, I can appreciate what he has to say. The pictures were a nice illustration, as well.
 
Several people have said that the private Chris Weeks and the public Chris Weeks are not the same person.

This afternoon, I recieved a message from him that tells me otherwise. Here is what he had to say. The message was entitled "yo":

"hey mate, why don't you show some of your own photographs?

perhaps you don't know how to photograph?

just spew ****?

perhaps."

For the life of me, I have no idea why one is not entitled to a view about the quality of his writing unless one establishes, presumably to his satisfaction, proficiency as a photographer. Nor do I understand why his message to me is entitled "yo". Nor do I understand why, as an American, he calls me "mate". Nor do I understand why he went to the effort of sending me a message that substantively says nothing more than "just spew ****?"

In the real world, people who write public material do so expecting that some people will agree with what they say and some people will be critical, perhaps and even highly critical. It goes with the territory. If Mr. Weeks wants to defend his writing, he should do it here rather than sending me a personal message that is abusive.

I am acutely aware of the fact that there are people who say that Mr. Weeks is a decent person despite his public persona. In fact, what these people are saying is that they are not in a big hurry to defend the way that he comes across in public. In any event, if he is a decent person, one of two things is going on. Either he wants his private and public persona to be the same, in which case he really needs to spend some time with a friend who knows something about writing and whom he trusts and who can explain why there are big problems with the way that he writes, or he wants a public persona which is a fiction. The latter is fine, but if that is what he wants to do, he has to understand that people will react to the fiction. He has to understand that the fiction, the way that he has created it, will be in the view of some people unattractive. Mr. Weeks's fictional persona, if that is what it is, is kind of like Jessica Simpson in full-blown airhead mode. If that is what he wants, cool, but he has no business, if that is his objective, to complain when people point it out.
 
Last edited:
photogdave said:
Who cares? He's just a guy...
Click to expand...

I care if he is supposed to be a serious photographer that some people here say is a decent person, but who thinks that he has a right, because I and others have criticized his writing, to send me an abusive message.

The fact is, I think that if he reads this thread, really reads it, all of it, he might realize that lashing out at people like me is not necessarily a good idea. If he knows what he is doing, and wants to come across the way that he does currently, he should just ignore people like me. If he isn't sure, maybe he should do some listening.

Either way, I can't take seriously a message from a guy in California that is entitled "yo" and that calls me "mate". It's just impossible to read something like that without laughing 🙂
 
Last edited:
MikeL said:
Maybe he wasn't trying to be "abusive", just "criticizing" like you were.
Click to expand...

That is a way cool idea. Tell your kid to just write "Just spew ****?" on an English essay. Could be worth an A+. Funny thing is, there is an amusing story about Auden along those lines, but all in all, I think that he would not be in a big hurry to characterize that as an exercise in "criticism". I mean, if your first language is English, this ain't complicated. Mr. Weeks's position is "Show me your photographs before you have the nerve to criticize anything that I write, sonny-boy". It's one of those statements that tends to be the result of way too much ego and/or way too much alcohol. Take your pick.

Read Weeks's review. Would you show it to a friend whose opinion you respect? Personally, I wouldn't, but let's suppose that you did, what do you think that his or her reaction would be? I'll tell you what I think Chris Weeks would be told by someone who understands writing and who is actually a friend. I think that he would be told "If you publish this, it will come off as embarrassing". There is a reason why God invented editors, and he needs one, badly.
 
Last edited:
You guys tried hard!
Chris hasn't replied??!!

Let me try!!

F#*king good article mate!!
You started more conservativly but you gave up!! Back to....


I know you have read this thread!

Kiu
 
breeze said:
For the life of me, I have no idea why one is not entitled to a view about the quality of his writing unless one establishes, presumably to his satisfaction, proficiency as a photographer. {And many other comments besides.}
Click to expand...
I have no desire to defend Chris Weeks publicly or privately. I'm sure he can look after himself in that regard.

It will probably be of no use, but as the person who started the thread I'll simply point out that my primary interest (and, I'm assuming, most on RFF) is in matters photographic rather than lingustic. In that regard, whatever one may think of the language used in Chris Weeks' report (he was quite explicit that it wasn't a review) it didn't prevent me, at least, from understanding the points he was making about his experience using the equipment, its photographic performance and its advantages and disadvanteges for him personally and perhaps for other photographers. The points he made were illustrated with lots of photographs and the experiences he related were of using the equipment in "real world" photographic applications rather than of tests in a lab somewhere.

All of that is of at least some value to photographers, especially those who might be contemplating buying the equipment Weeks was reporting on. For those unfamiliar with him, I posted what I hope was adequate warning about strong language just above the URL to his blog entry. All anybody who is easily offended needs to do, to prevent exposure to such language, is refrain from clicking on the link.

Having said that, of course you're entitled to make any comment you like about the quality of his writing. However, you can't really expect that others here will care about this as much as you seem to. I imagine most people come here for news and views about photography and, I hope, to look at photographs and to display some of their own. His blog entry had lots of those things (except for displaying our own photos, of course). So you shouldn't really be surprised, let alone offended, if such matters hold more interest to a bunch of photographers than analysing English expression or attempting to psychoanalyse an author based on his writings.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
You guys just don't get it. Chris Weeks is a Tough Guy. He eats gear heads like you for breakfast. How do I know he's a Tough Guy? He uses an expletive in every sentence. Sometimes two or three. That's what Tough Guys do, right?

If it wasn't for the fact that he actually seems to know what he's talking about, and is a pretty good photographer besides, I wouldn't bother to read his juvenile posturings. Well, that and the fact that he can be pretty funny too. It's just that you have to wade through a lot of s---t to get to the good stuff. (See, now he has me started!)
 
I guess I'll be a part of the "unpopular" crowd as I think this article by Chris Weeks was well.......boring. Just as he himself seems to be. I don't know the guy, so I could be wrong, yet based on what I read and see - here is what I can say:

The Zeiss Article. At first I thought it was going to be interesting. Hands on approach of a working photographer. Well, after a few sentences it got rather childish. I agree with Breeze - his writing skills are in need of work. But than I told myself - he is a photographer, so at least photos should be good. And another disappointment there. Those photos are just Ok. Very very unoriginal. And this is from a photographer, who is supposed to be well known, Leica or RF using individual with apparently a very high opinion of his skills. It seems that since he uses Leicas and film SOMETIMES - it automatically makes him very good. That comment that he apparently made to Breeze - along the lines of - "lets see your photos, before you can comment on mine" - sounds like a spoiled and selfabsorbed teenager. For a seasoned photographer to say that - its plain stupid. As we all know - one doesn't have to be a movie star to comment on other movies, or a musician to critique a singer. And all that wining about poor lab results/scans of his photos - shows how seriously he takes his photography. But than again - it's just a simple observation of the camera and a couple of lenses. So, why take it seriously? Maybe he is different when it comes to his professional work. After all Chris reminds us that photograpy is how he makes money.
Ok, I looked at that too. On the same page as the article is, there is tab that links to more of his photos. So what did I find? More photos , that any working photographer or even a serious amature can take. Nothing original, nothing amazing. I suppose the fact that most of them are of celebrities and are in B&W makes them better or more aristic? I didnt think so. And also same type of a language in descriptions as he uses in his Zeiss article. I guess this is the style he chose for himself. Funny enough, some photos have same comments on how bad his lab is. Also, while there some photos done with Leica, most are from digital Canon EOS. Nothing wrong with that, just the way it came across (to me at least) in his Ikon review - that he is a big time rangefinder guy. Seems not so.
So, all in all, I figure that he is a very typical, average photographer, who just got lucky by either having connections, or maybe his personality helped, or just being at the right place at the right time - who knows, made him a better known one. I know that there are many far better photographers out there, - some I know personally, others - just seen their work. But I'd be more interested to see what they can do with Ikon and those Zeiss lenses.
His review of the system - is just another review, that I think, could be interesting for some, yet not so much for the others. Just as my opinion on this matter. 😉
Overall - I expected better. A better overview of the lenses and camera, and far better photos. I think some members here did a better job. Both - in a written word and photographically.
 
Breeze, Weeks isn't my role model, but just a remark:

If you tell someone he is an a$$hole in "polite" and polished English, it communicates the same message as if you just write "a$$hole" in clear text. So don't get surprised with a similarly spirited reply.

Also, I don't know where did you learn to write essays, but I hope they mentioned there that publishing personal correspondence in public without mutual consent isn't good manners either.
 
I thought that there was a rule at RFF that we didn't make negative personal remarks about other members.

Chris knows how to look after himself, but it wouldn't be at all nice if somebody else here in the future was singled out in this way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom