nokton35/1.4mc test film&digtal

There's a really long PDF book written in this style on his DeviantArt site. He has forewards to the book written by different street photographers and some of them have some great shots. The book is worth downloading for that alone.

As for his own street shots, I think they're mostly mediocre or crap. I'm younger than him and I still find his writing style EXTREMELY irritating. I agree that the most important thing is getting out and shooting, but that's a pretty obvious and trite thing.

His non-street photography is actually pretty decent, and I admire the fact that he works hard and cares about what he does, but I don't hold his opinions of anything in high regard.
 
Sam N said:
There's a really long PDF book written in this style on his DeviantArt site. He has forewards to the book written by different street photographers and some of them have some great shots. The book is worth downloading for that alone.

As for his own street shots, I think they're mostly mediocre or crap. I'm younger than him and I still find his writing style EXTREMELY irritating. I agree that the most important thing is getting out and shooting, but that's a pretty obvious and trite thing.

His non-street photography is actually pretty decent, and I admire the fact that he works hard and cares about what he does, but I don't hold his opinions of anything in high regard.
Click to expand...

yo, sam, let's see your brilliant work, mate.

i'm sure ... like many of your cohorts here ... it's quite stellar.

i'm sure you're a "flickr pro," right?
 
Let's hope this doesn't degenerate. Love the pictures - in my own amateurish and non-commercial work with these two lenses I have discovered I like the Nokton and am glad I kept the Summilux. Steven, thanks for lending Chris the lens and Chris - thanks for posting the shots.

I definitely don't need to pay to read Sean's stuff telling me the Nokton is not so hot. It is good enough.
 
guys,

let's remember be respectful to each other.
we can discuss differences without hurtful comments.

Stephen
 
mahomo said:
chris weeks does not speak a different language, nor is it infantile. he writes in a passionate, colloquial style which is immediately accessible, engaging, and most of all entertaining. the colloquial style of writing was used in milton's 'paradise lost', joyce's 'ulysses', and a great deal of the works of shakespeare, who also swore. the english language is an ever changing, constantly evolving beast, and there is no right or wrong way to use it.
Click to expand...

Ironically those authors you cited would not agree with this assertion.
 
chrisweeks said:
yo, sam, let's see your brilliant work, mate.

i'm sure ... like many of your cohorts here ... it's quite stellar.

i'm sure you're a "flickr pro," right?
Click to expand...

As a public Internet figure / professional you should expect (and be able to handle) some criticism.

I maintain my opinions (both the positive and negative ones), but I was wrong to use the word "crap". That was rude of me and I apologize.
 
Last edited:
morgan said:
I think you guys are being a little hard on him and fairly uptight. Yeah, his writing style may not be what you'd read in a magazine (nor is his site meant to necessarily appeal to a broad audience), and there aren't test photos or pictures of charts, but man, with his experience, he's the guy I'd want reviewing lenses. Looking at his photos and coming to my own conclusion is a lot easier and more reality-based than super technical specs or some of the shots seen on a site like dpreview (don't get me wrong, I love his reviews too). If you don't like his writing, then don't read his sote. The best part is, you don't even need to, just look at the shots (which are amazing).
Click to expand...

IMHO there is no substitute for having manners...a certain integrity/digity/poise/class that shows you have some form of self-control. People who conduct themselves in such a way, especially under difficult circumstances, really impress me....

No matter what he manages as a photographer, there are those who have managed to hold themselves with a certain dignity about them and achieve far greater, well, greatness. I do not see the correllation between mouthing off and toting about an ego the size of a planet and being a good photographer, but I can perhaps see the relationship between that and being a 'Hollywood/Celeb' photog. In all seriouslness, I can imagine a 'normal' person being rendered invisible in such circles by virtue of not having enough 'ego visibility'.

His photographs tell you almost nothing about the kit he is reviewing, only his ability to take certain photographs with that lens and show them at 72 dpi at 3x5 or whatever. You don't know if they would be sharper with something else, better flare control or anything else for that matter. In fact you dont even know if they are sharp at all as the small images convey little. If you value his opinion and are prepared to take it as issued, that is different and I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. His writing does convey some useful information and there is no doubt he is experienced, however, he seems to be working towards premature typing related arthritis purely from excessive expletives and pointless mouthing off. He could be done with his reviews a lot quicker and enjoying model making (or whatever he really does in private when nobody is looking ;) ) if he refrained, but then again that would fail to convey the attitude that I imagine is important in his line of work.

All the ego and BS just seems to dilute the reviews and make them painful to read. Seems pointless and I am not sure what it achieves.

Just because someone is a famous/successful photographer does not mean that one should admire them in a complete sense. I might admire the work but not think much of the person that took the images. Vlad the Impaler was a successful impaler and OBL is a successful terrorist.... There seems to be some confusion between celebrity status/material success and being worthy of respect. Many people would accumulate more and 'achieve more' if they threw away their standards. not all are prepared to do so, however, and it seems to me that those who makes this choice are defined by things more enduring and noble. It just seems a shame to achieve such success as a photographer and appear unable to achieve basic decency.
 
infrequent said:
so writing like that means channelling milton and joyce?! who knew!
Click to expand...

Probably not, but the main difference I see between Chis and Joyce in Finnegans Wake, is that I can understand what Chris says.

Maybe I am just ignorant and illiterate.
 
@fgianni - i can only imagine that 'finnegans wake' was not joyce's greatest moment. and neither was rant chris' finest.
 
Last edited:
Not to revive this thread, which kind of degenerated - but volvohagi, what are your thoughts now on the lens and the R-D1? I just bought an R-D1 and my 1.2 seems big on it for a walk around and I'm not super in love with my ultron. I'm going to keep the 1.2, but the 1.4 might be the perfect walk around for the R-D1.
 
I'm curious about this lens too, now that I'm in the market for an R3M. If anyone has some new thoughts about it, I'd love to hear them.

As for Chris Weeks...never heard of the guy before today...but wow, what a relief to read a review with some personality in it. His pictures are pretty consistently interesting, too.
 
I like rude, obnoxious, arrogant and politically-incorrect people, probably because I am one. So I quite like Chris Weeks and have enough sense to take everything he writes and says with a salt-block. As for his review, I learned more from his photos than any other review I have seen. He gave that little lens a pounding in the worst lighting conditions you can encounter and the VC 35mm f1.4 has its flaws, but it is good enough for me. But then I am a little like Chris Weeks, I really do not care how a lenses scores on the MTF garble, just how it renders. Heck, my ancient Nikkor-N 35mm f1.4 that has been filled with saltwater, dropped, scratched and marked(the glass) would never make muster with the pixel-peepers, but after a few decades of service is still my primary lens for making my favorite photos. It does 1.4 and that is good enough for me.

So I am off to get a VC 35mm f1.4 SC and set it free in its natural habitat.
 
I don't mind swearing in a review or anywhere else on the Internet, but it was annoying to read through several paragraphs of half-baked political commentary before getting to the stuff about the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom