Erwin is back on line

[Frank Granovski]

Bill, I find the reading difficult because he rambles on and on and on and with few periods.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, I find the reading difficult because he rambles on and on and on and with few periods.

Interesting observation. I am usually sensitive to run-on sentences, and I didn't notice that in his most recent article (the one pointed to at the start of this thread).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Bertram2]

Agree with him or disagree, love him or hate him, Erwin provides a technical analysis for free that would cost hundreds or thousands to obtain otherwise. .

Yes that's amazing, isn't it !? And we still don't know who pays him for all that effort. Maybe he is rich and does that all just for fun ? 😀 😀

bertram

 

[Alec]

Bill, I find the reading difficult because he rambles on and on and on and with few periods.

That is eerily reminiscent of the French nouveau roman style! 😀

 

[Huck Finn]

Touche', Bertram. Point well taken. But at least Leica publishes MTF charts for all of their lenses, so we can compare what Erwin says with the actual data, since this is what he uses for much of his analysis. Zeiss also provides MTF data on all of their lenses, so his recent reviews of their lenses can also be analyzed by comparing his conclusions with the data. I sure wish that Cosina would provide such data. It would help a little to understand the capabilities of their lenses as well.

I'm certainly not suggesting that MTF charts are the last word in portraying lens performance. Far from it. It's all in the pictures, of course. I look at the MTF charts the same way that I look at other specs; they simply provide measurements of certain lens features. It's certainly data that I'd like to have.

Huck

 

[bmattock]

Ah, I had forgotten about the OTHER form of character-based attack.

When one has nothing logical upon which to base an argument, simply imply that the person one dislikes is in the pay of the company they often tout, thus throwing their reputation to the dogs without actually having called them a liar. Imply that they are nothing but a paid mouthpiece for company XYZ, thus nullifying anything they might say about that company. No proof, you understand, but sly innuendo will impeach just as readily.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Alec]

And we still don't know who pays him for all that effort. Maybe he is rich and does that all just for fun ? 😀 😀

I was wondering, too.
Here is an apocryphal answer : scroll down to
Patrick (Washington, DC) , apr 02, 2002; 09:47 a.m.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002hQi

 

[bmattock]

Touche', Bertram. Point well taken.

That's not a point, that's innuendo. Points have, well, a point. For instance, a copy of a pay stub. An admission of guilt. Something along those lines. Innuendo is simply a way of destroying character without actually having to stoop to call someone a liar. It's ungentlemanly.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Huck Finn]

That's not a point, that's innuendo. Points have, well, a point. For instance, a copy of a pay stub. An admission of guilt. Something along those lines. Innuendo is simply a way of destroying character without actually having to stoop to call someone a liar. It's ungentlemanly.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I stand corrected, Bill. I think that we agree. The data is there from Leica, Zeiss, & others for anyone to form their own opinion & take issue with Erwin's analysis & conclusions regardless of any other factors anyway. Your point is well taken that it's what he says that matters in the end & that the criticism pro or con should be based on his product & not other extraneous issues.

Huck

 

[bmattock]

I stand corrected, Bill. I think that we agree. The data is there from Leica, Zeiss, & others for anyone to form their own opinion & take issue with Erwin's analysis & conclusions regardless of any other factors anyway. Your point is well taken that it's what he says that matters in the end & that the criticism pro or con should be based on his product & not other extraneous issues.

Huck

I think it would be perfectly valid to impeach Puts' credibility on the basis that he was on Leica's payroll - especially if it were done in secret - but not to imply it without being able to prove anything of the sort.

The fact that Puts seems to favor Leica at times hardly means he is working for Leica. Having a bias is normal and natural, and a diligent reader would take that into account. I don't think Puts has stated his objectivity - but not having read all his work, I could be wrong.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Ben Z]

Are movie critics great directors? Are sports commentators all great athletes? Do political commentators frequently hold high office? Food critics - are they all wonderful chefs? Oh yes, and the Times book reviewers - they all have written top ten-selling novels, right?

Didn't think so.

Expertise in a field is not relegated to technical proficiency only.

It seems like anyone with a lick of common sense understands that intuitively, and you'd think that pro photographers would in addition be cognizant of the reality that the people (editors, customers, clients) who pay them for their work have no obligation to have a clue about cameras or lenses yet they have the final word as to whether or not the photographer is successful. Yet on the internet, in camera forums like pnet (and perhaps others though I haven't really seen it anywhere else) the concept is treated as if it doesn't exist (and in their reality, therefore it doesn't).

But it all seems to come down to one thing, 'sour grapes'. People dislike anyone who sticks a pin in the balloon of their faith, and if they cannot find a logical reason to dispute their assertations, they'll use whatever they can find.

The only plausible explanation I've been able to come up with for the above, but it still doesn't explain how a group of supposedly intelligent people can get together and decide to suspend reason and reality without admitting even to themselves how ridiculous they look.

Ah, I had forgotten about the OTHER form of character-based attack.

When one has nothing logical upon which to base an argument, simply imply that the person one dislikes is in the pay of the company they often tout, thus throwing their reputation to the dogs without actually having called them a liar. Imply that they are nothing but a paid mouthpiece for company XYZ, thus nullifying anything they might say about that company. No proof, you understand, but sly innuendo will impeach just as readily.

Yes, I agree it's cowardly and despicable and irresponsible to make that kind of accusation without proof, but OTOH I will admit thinking it to myself more than once. As someone who has lived a good deal of life, I know better than that every new offering from one particular manufacturer can be superlative and faultless, so starts the seed of suspicion. Quite often Erwin has described a very small, incremental improvement over the discontinued predecessor using phrases that suggest much greater magnitude, and implying a lack of discerning standards on the part of any individual who doesn't perceive it with the same level of significance. That I think is where someone with a bevy of last-generation Leica lenses (or some other brand lenses), who has achieved a modicum of success (or perhaps just has put years of effort into a body of photos he's proud of) takes Erwin's seemingly arrogant attitude toward the importance of minute optical phenomena as a personal insult, especially since he seems less interested and less capable in photography vs lens-testing.

What I think Erwin lacks is tact, and an understanding that his "audience" wants to be entertained (or at the very least, not insulted) while they're being informed. Nobody reacts as negatively toward Brian Bower, who also praises Leica products, and I believe it's because he does it without arrogance or condescention toward the equipment his readership may already own, and by implication, toward the readers themselves.

BTW I've met and spoken with the man personally, he doesn't wear a red suit and carry a pitchfork like he's made out. He's friendly, disarming and extremely intelligent, with a thirst for knowledge.

 

[celluloidprop]

Are movie critics great directors? Are sports commentators all great athletes? Do political commentators frequently hold high office? Food critics - are they all wonderful chefs? Oh yes, and the Times book reviewers - they all have written top ten-selling novels, right?

There is a huge difference here.

Puts isn't a photography critic - he isn't writing about Cartier-Bresson or Mary Ellen Mark or Eugene Meatyard. He's writing a technical analysis of lenses and judging their qualities - that is a job where you expect the individual to have some skill with a camera.

When I read a review of a new non-linear editing system, I expect them to have some passing familiarity with editing a film. When I read a review of a guitar or amp, I expect the reviewer to know how to play a bit.

 

[bmattock]

but OTOH I will admit thinking it to myself more than once. As someone who has lived a good deal of life, I know better than that every new offering from one particular manufacturer can be superlative and faultless, so starts the seed of suspicion.

I quite agree, and this often forms the basis for my choosing not to read a particular reviewer, or at least to discount what he or she has to say.

Strangely, I've never felt the need to start numerous threads on various photo-related websites telling the world what an awful person so-and-so is.

Quite often Erwin has described a very small, incremental improvement over the discontinued predecessor using phrases that suggest much greater magnitude, and implying a lack of discerning standards on the part of any individual who doesn't perceive it with the same level of significance. That I think is where someone with a bevy of last-generation Leica lenses (or some other brand lenses), who has achieved a modicum of success (or perhaps just has put years of effort into a body of photos he's proud of) takes Erwin's seemingly arrogant attitude toward the importance of minute optical phenomena as a personal insult, especially since he seems less interested and less capable in photography vs lens-testing.

What I think Erwin lacks is tact, and an understanding that his "audience" wants to be entertained (or at the very least, not insulted) while they're being informed. Nobody reacts as negatively toward Brian Bower, who also praises Leica products, and I believe it's because he does it without arrogance or condescention toward the equipment his readership may already own, and by implication, toward the readers themselves.

BTW I've met and spoken with the man personally, he doesn't wear a red suit and carry a pitchfork like he's made out. He's friendly, disarming and extremely intelligent, with a thirst for knowledge.

Interesting comment about his tact. Perhaps that's the problem - I don't tend to notice such things, or at least to accept them as strong statements and not attacks. Tactlessness happens, of course, and rudeness will turn me off. But since I don't own any Leica equipment (except an old Hektor 135 LTM), I just haven't been turned to that channel.

I can see your point - if a person has thousands invested in a pet system that they're very proud of, to hear Erwin tear it down might make them feel bad, even angry. Fair enough - I just never thought of that, not being one of those Leica system owners.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Ben Z]

He's writing a technical analysis of lenses and judging their qualities - that is a job where you expect the individual to have some skill with a camera.

Those who make the finest musical instruments, guns, golf clubs, race cars--the list goes on--are often barely adequate players if that. The manufacturers are savvy enough to enlist the renowned players to endorse them, because they understand the power of celebrity, and maybe that has led to the general acceptance of that paradigm by the buying public, but in point of fact, the qualification for technical analysis of lenses is a knowledge of optics and the technical aspects of photography, and skill with a camera has nothing whatsoever to do with it. If Salgado's opinion of a particular model of Leica impresses you more than Sherry Krauter's, that's your prerogative of course.

 

[bmattock]

There is a huge difference here.

Puts isn't a photography critic - he isn't writing about Cartier-Bresson or Mary Ellen Mark or Eugene Meatyard. He's writing a technical analysis of lenses and judging their qualities - that is a job where you expect the individual to have some skill with a camera.

When I read a review of a new non-linear editing system, I expect them to have some passing familiarity with editing a film. When I read a review of a guitar or amp, I expect the reviewer to know how to play a bit.

I read reviews of audio equipment all the time - reviewers seldom are equipment designers, and I have no idea what qualifications they may hold in the way of EE degrees and so on. I sometimes find that the person writing seems less than technically proficient themselves, and so discount their article. It has never made me want to go out and shout it to the world - the Puts-haters seem to feel the need to do that - do they not?

Puts apparently knows how to take a photograph. If the negative is well-exposed and in-focus, I am unsure how asthetically pleasing it has to be in order to demonstrate the technical qualifications of a lens or provide a basis for testing same.

It was said by Richard Henry in "Controls in Black and White" (also referenced by Puts) that when authors are highly-qualified technical writers, they write for technical publications that the public tends not to read or understand. Popular writers write for a popular audience, with a greater or lesser degree of technical expertise - and it is for the audience to determine how proficient they feel the author must be to expound on a particular subject.

Regardless, this still leaves me mystified why some feel the burning desire to destroy the reputation and character of this man by shouting it all over the Internet to whomever will listen.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Buttons]

Isn't it always so in Fori that one who is more knowledgable (and is relatively succesfull with their knowledge) pi**ed upon. I for one have to thank Erwin, for he has been one of the forces which made me decide to switch to Leica.

I understand that one can become completely lyrical about the brand and in Erwins case if he has the skills to back this up with relevant information and publish it, well good for him, and good for us. I have chosen my lenses, and will choose them in future by consulting his reckomendations for up until now I have not been dissapointed. He might get to deep, long, broad, wide in some cases but so did Goethe and Schiller....

I for one will back him up for he provides excellent information, and if he test both the CV and Leica 21mm and comes up with the conclusion that Leica is a better choice he is right, but.... but he backs his argumentation up with facts and information.

so Welcome back Erwin ....

 

[celluloidprop]

Those who make the finest musical instruments, guns, golf clubs, race cars--the list goes on--are often barely adequate players if that.

Those are designers - people for whom engineering is the first calling. You don't have to be Tiger Woods to study how the slope or mass of a club-head is going to effect performance.

Likewise:

I read reviews of audio equipment all the time - reviewers seldom are equipment designers, and I have no idea what qualifications they may hold in the way of EE degrees and so on. I sometimes find that the person writing seems less than technically proficient themselves, and so discount their article. It has never made me want to go out and shout it to the world - the Puts-haters seem to feel the need to do that - do they not?

Yes and no. I don't read Photo.net very often. It tends to draw the type of people who would shout anything to the world that upset them, whether they're knowledgable or not. Other people I've read criticizing him (on the LUG, etc.) have legitimate arguments.

But anyway, I couldn't care less if a magazine or web reviewer on the consumer end has engineering experience - I wouldn't expect them to. Engineering degrees are terribly when you're designing the product. Not so much when you're reviewing. What matters then is your ability to use the tool being reviewed, whether it's a lens or a guitar.

 

[celluloidprop]

But I should also note that I have little opinion of Puts either way. His photography (as illustrated) is atrocious, but so is the cheesecake used to accompany Shutterbug reviews. His technical comments are sometimes useful, and his 'Leica bias' never read that strong to me - he praised a number of V-C lenses and gives the new Zeiss lenses a fair shake.

 

[ddunn]

Interesting that During the Korean war it [the M3] was the main camera to record the events. Must have been prototypes, as IIRC the official product launch was in 1954, whereas the ceasefire was signed on 27 July 1953.

David Douglas Duncan, whose "This Is War" is arguably the best of the Korean War photo books, used Leica IIIc's. However, he was one of the first to use Nikkor lenses.

 

[Mackinaw]

A couple of years back, I sold Erwin an old Canon F-1. He heard that I had a knowledge of F-1's (sorry to admit that at one time I actually used a SLR) and sent me an e-mail, out of the blue, asking if I could help locate an F-1 (original version) for him. While I never met him in person, we exchanged e-mails for a few months and my opinion of the man is that he is a genuine nice guy. Very cordial and polite which his something that can't be said of his critics.

As for his writing style, i hope folks realize that Erwin is Danish and English is a second language for him. As a buddy of mine says, Erwin writes better than many people who call English their first language.

Jim Bielecki