Puts and the new Summarit-M lenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gabriel M.A. said:
...Since I don't know Dutch or German, I don't know if this is only an affliction exclusive to his writings in English --and let's face it, not even the majority of the native speakers care to use it properly--, which prompts me to ask: who translates these articles? Babelfish, with the aid of some volunteer?
Click to expand...
I thought Puts himself writes the articles in English.

Richard
 
J J Kapsberger said:
I visited your website and very much like and respect your photography so I certainly won't flame you. But I must ask, how would you define "using them appropriately"?

I shall be the first to admit that I'm no screamin' virtuoso when it comes to technique; however, my Leica glass gives me something in my images that I never see when I use my Nikon stuff. My Leica images just have more life to them. They paint nicer pictures, all things being equal.

For instance, there seems to be an anti-35 Summicron ASPH movement afoot on RFF. Well, I bought one of those lenses new and I think one can create sparkling images with that lens. I've taken portraits with that lens that show very pleasing renditions of my subjects and not bad bokeh to boot. Likewise with my new 90 Elmarit-M f/2.8. Call me crazy, but I also like the images from my latest version 50 Summicron!
Click to expand...

Hello J.J.-

I should apologize for being a little vague. What I should have said instead of "using them appropriately" is using them to their limits, where the differences would be, perhaps, evident. If one lens at this class level is sharper than another, one would not be able to discern a difference until a rather large enlargement is made, and even then it would only be discernible if the comparison was made directly. In any case all lenses today are better than the lenses that many of the "masters" used years ago, and that didn't stop them from creating amazing images. One of my favorite lenses is a f/1.5 Sonnar that is uncoated from before WW2, yet I can enlarge the images made with this lens beyond 11x14 with ease if I have done my job right. By all accounts of Mr. Puts this should be impossible. An uncoated 70 year old lens? It is a dinosaur.

If one likes to use optics because they are the best (or supposedly so) then that is all well and good, but one is kidding oneself if one believes one creates better images because of the optic. A great image is a great image regardless of the lens used to make it. Subtle differences exist which is all well and good. I have seen beautiful images made with a Holga that would still be beautiful if made with a Leica, and vice versa. The instrument matters very little in the vast scheme of things. I hope this elucidates my rather vague point.

Take amazing pictures regardless of what Mr. Puts says about the quality of your equipment. His opinion means very little. No one that really matters cares what he thinks. That should be your position, which seemingly it already is.

Patrick
 
richard_l said:
I thought Puts himself writes the articles in English.
Click to expand...

He writes them in English himself. In Dutch he often doesn't make much sense either. His grammar and vocabulary is fine; he just screws up his thoughts, coming up with comparisons that make no sense, are "inappropriate", miss the mark, or are just plain stupid.

BTW, Puts is no optical scientist. He started out in IT, IIRC. I've never seen a (auto)biography on him, but I'm pretty sure he never stated anywhere he's an optical scientist. That would make him an amateur, though a skilful and killed one. For me he's not an authority because he lets his personal opinion interfere with the "scientific" results he produces, often contradicts himself, and talks rubbish too often. Then again, he knows how to market himself, and that's one skill that can cover much of his flaws.
 
It will be interesting to see the prices of these lenses once actually on discounted sale. Might be in for surprise...might not. I am happy with my decisions to buy mainly but not totally Zeiss but if these prove to be great and have other benefits (perhaps smaller) and for similar price they would deserve consideration would they not? I for one am most interested in the ultra compact CV lense at present rather than something optically super-dupa. My Zeiss give all the optical performance I could ever need and I have no need for more lenses, but am very tempted by the 35 pancake 2. weeny and cheap.

There is another issue here which has little to do with image making and that is ownership. Why do people buy classic cars that they use for 50 miles a year? Because they want to (fondle them). A fair few people will buy these lenses irrespective of their relative value against the competition because they are leica. I can live with that if it helps keep the pixies at work in the solms caverns.

They look reasonably compact too....certainly a better purchase than the asph summiluxes if you are a butterfingers 😉

If these lenses are sharper on centre than the zeiss equivalents that would make them worthy of consideration for some people. I suspect that Leica might have leaned in teh direction of Zeiss in this regard however.

As for Putz, taken with a pinch of salt he provides soem useful info. I am certainly glad he is about but ultimately base my buying decisions on a lto more homework. Those who do the same need not worry either...
 
If you really want to see what a lens will do don't judge by looking at images produced by snap shooters sending their film to the costco and those that have little to no skill. Put the lenses in the hands of skilled that produce superb images and see what they can do. Who illustrated the quality and character better, a person that can't reproduce the same result twice or a master?
 
x-ray said:
My equipment has never been the limiting factor or prevented me from producing images that satisfy the most stringent requirements of clients and earning me hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you mock other photographers for judging their equipment by the pricetag attached to it. But you extol your own work using the same criterion.

It is a wonderful thing to make a living by creative means. But is a crass thing to boast about how much money you make doing it - of every great photographer or other artist I have known and worked with, I can't think of one who has done so.
 
Paul I'm not mocking anyone but I am pointing out that the equipment, the name and price has nothing to do with the quality, creativity and the value of a photograph in the hands of a skilled photographer. I'm not slapping anyone because of what i make in my work but illustrating that I use equipment that some of the forum memebers would define as inferior because it's not leica and make a very fine living with it.

If your equipemnt is your life then that's great but ease off the bashing of equipment that you or others define as inferior.
 
You make some good points X-Ray, that are valid for most of us. But we can all think of instances where individuals repeatedly point at their own web photos as examples of why everyone who uses a different brand lacks the ability to discern good from bad. And, they manage to find followers on internet forums who'll swoon over that photography, only (though of course they can't/won't admit it) because it was made with their preferred brand of camera. At least Erwin is upfront about where his major interest lies.
 
No question Erwin is up front and I respect him for that if nothing else.

I'm not trying to hurt anyone or elevate myself but want to get people past their attitude that one brand is better than another and no self respecting shooter would be caught dead with anything other than a leica. Let's not be leica snobs.
 
I would no more make a photo equipment buying decision on the basis of Mr. Puts' writing than I would a wine based on an evaluation by Parker or Laube, or audio equipment based on the opinions of Harley or Atkinson. Everyone has an opinion, with which I may agree or disagree - after the fact.

In my experience, nobody who writes about something for a living is truly an expert in that thing. Experts are people who make a living actually making, doing or using a thing - and they rarely have the time, inclination or talent to write about it. Maybe one good book at the end of a career.

And with all due respect to those who know Mr. Puts and think well of him - that makes absolutely no difference to the rest of us. I have found the greatest charlatans to be the most charming and engaging people in person. This whole thing about "how can you criticize so and so - he is a nice guy and works hard!" - this sort of ad hominem defense is so much crap. Mr. Puts writings speak for themselves - they speak well to some and they turn off others. End of story.

These lenses ARE interesting. The new Summarits appear to mark a move by Leica to adopt modern manufacturing methods, like plaform sharing. I hope they sell a bunch of them, so that they can keep making Summiluxes - sort of like Porsche building the Cayenne so they can keep making the 911.

- John
 
In the mid 70's I had the good fortune to study photography with two of the great masters, Ansel Adams and Arnold Newman. I also had the great fortune to spend time with Imogen Cunningham and discuss photography with her and Bret Weston. I think most of you would agree that none of these folks are slouches in their art. Ansel used Zeiss Contax RF equipment, Arnold used old Nikon F's, Imogen to my knowledge didn't use 35mm but used a very old Rolleiflex and Brett used a Rollei SL66 for years and then went to a RB67. In view equipment every one of them used old cameras as a rule and vintage lenses. Arnold used a very old 40's press type camera and some old coated lensesd from the late 40's and early 50's. Ansel used Hasselblads because Hasselblad gave them to him as a consultant for them. None used Leicas to my knowledge.

My point is that it's not the camera or the lens but it is the photographer that makes a great image, aesthetically and technically. I respect people for the photography they do not the camera they carry.
 
Last edited:
foto_fool said:
And with all due respect to those who know Mr. Puts and think well of him - that makes absolutely no difference to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Sorry I must've missed the thread where you were elected spokesperson for "the rest of us" 🙄

I have found the greatest charlatans to be the most charming and engaging people in person.
Click to expand...

So then your conclusion is that everyone who is charming and engaging is a charlatan?

This whole thing about "how can you criticize so and so - he is a nice guy and works hard!" - this sort of ad hominem defense is so much crap.
Click to expand...

I did not even vaguely imply that he should be exempt from criticism. Anyone who does what he does has to expect to be called out on his opinions and prepared to defend them.
 
Ah Ben, thanks for pointing out where I could have been more precise: "should make" instead of "makes", or "some of us" instead of "the rest of us." When really, like Puts, I'm just speaking for me. 🙄

And you know exactly the fallacy inherent in your second point 😀 !

Regarding criticizing Puts - that's not what I was doing either, and if my post implied it I regret it. What I was trying to say is that his opinions only matter as much as the reader wants them to.

- John
 
x-ray said:
I stand by a statement that I've made many times, If Leica was superior or any other brand then every art director and photo editor would REQUIRE every photographer working for them to use that product. Superiority is strictly a subjective statement not a fact.
Click to expand...

In some cases they do. It was explained to me by someone whom I'd consider knowledgeable in this regard that the publisher of Norbert Rosing's book The World of the Polar Bear (please follow the link below) as a rule only accept images created in medium format or larger. For Rosing's book they made an exception only because his 35mm images achieved their technical standards. The equipment? Leica SLR.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Polar-Bear-Norbert-Rosing/dp/1554071550

However, Xray, in general you are absolutely correct.
 
Last edited:
J J Kapsberger said:
In some cases they do. It was explained to me by someone whom I'd consider knowledgeable in this regard that the publisher of Norbert Rosing's book The World of the Polar Bear (please follow the link below) as a rule only accept images created in medium format or larger. For Rosing's book they made an exception only because his 35mm images achieved their technical standards. The equipment? Leica SLR.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Polar-Bear-Norbert-Rosing/dp/1554071550

However, Xray, in general you are absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

I shure would have hated to do this shoot with a MF or LF camera. 35mm was the right choice and often is. Each format has it's place and with the right selection of film and god technique something like this can be done very well. Look at the nature work of Galen Rowell. Galen used Nikon for his work and I've seen 24x30 C prints that would knock you out. Galen died in a plane crash a few years ago and to my knowledge always used Nikon film equipment and never shot digital.

This goes back to the point I was trying to make. Quality is not limited to one brand and not limited to one format. It's the man behind the camera, the film, the lab and the printer that make as much difference as the quality of the camera and lens. More so than the lens the character of an image is the result of a blend of these factors. Every major brand on the market today has equal potential to do great and very high quality work in the right hands, CV included.
 
x-ray said:
I shure would have hated to do this shoot with a MF or LF camera. 35mm was the right choice and often is. Each format has it's place and with the right selection of film and god technique something like this can be done very well. Look at the nature work of Galen Rowell. Galen used Nikon for his work and I've seen 24x30 C prints that would knock you out. Galen died in a plane crash a few years ago and to my knowledge always used Nikon film equipment and never shot digital.

This goes back to the point I was trying to make. Quality is not limited to one brand and not limited to one format. It's the man behind the camera, the film, the lab and the printer that make as much difference as the quality of the camera and lens. More so than the lens the character of an image is the result of a blend of these factors. Every major brand on the market today has equal potential to do great and very high quality work in the right hands, CV included.
Click to expand...

I thought Galen used MF panoramic camera. No?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom