Puts on the Zeiss ikon

What I find biased is that the Ikon picture in the beginning of the article is placed below the M7, indicating that it's a lesser camera, even though Puts' review is a review of the Zeiss Ikon. Call it symbolism or whatever but it does foreshadow a slant from the start. Thank you very much and have a great evening. ;)
 
Clearly visible in the pictures of the viewfinders is that, although the leica picture is displayed brighter, the Zeiss ikon finder is more bright. So the ZI finder must be signifcant brighter compared to the finder of a M7.
 
bmattock said:
And perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I take it seriously when someone uses a person's name to belittle them. If my best friend walked up to me and said "Hey, Bill Buttocks!" to my face, I'd break his nose and he'd take his teeth home in his pocket and there would not even be a discussion about it first. I don't think it is 'all in fun' to make fun of a man's name. Sorry.

But I guess I have to realize that some people just don't see it that way.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks


Bill I'm with you so far, but please consider that some 5.8 billion people don't know words from yiddish origin and how they are used in the US.

For me Putz is part of "Hausputz" as in "cleaning your house", Putz may be a womans hat or hairdress in german as used up to the 1950s or 60s. If you dress in your best cloth, shine your shoes and get your fingernails clean to go to church on sunday, you are "herausgeputzt".

Putz is plaster, too.

So it took me some time on photo.net to understand why this is insulting and not just a misspelling.

And to Erwin Puts himself, as long as he doesn't write about motorcycles ....
 
And to Erwin Puts himself, as long as he doesn't write about motorcycles ....
__________________







some times erwin cleaning writes about cars and motorcycles and makes some strange comparisons with camera's
 
Last edited:
Mazurka said:
I don't hate Erwin the man, but rather his ridiculous, illogical ramblings that are often misleading. Anything Leica does is splendid. :D

Yes, but that's what he always did and what he always will do and we all know why he does so. I can't take all this serious anymore since quite a long time.

I refuse to read his stuff because If I deal with his stuff seriously it proves this MATTERS for me and this would prove I am intellectually on par with him and most of all, with his fans too.

So I decided to keep him just as a kinda entertainer for a certain part of the Leica community, with a lot of unvoluntary humor in his essay-like tests which are not relevant in any way for me. And that's IT.

I know that is an illusionary imagination but best Putz would be declared as a non-issue here in this forum .Whenever and wherever he is mentioned he polarizes the community in a way which would be reason enuff to ban HIM !

bertram
 
After reading his report I think it isn't to bad.

We've heard reports about the ZI not feeling right to long time Leica owners and IMHO Erwin tried to show where this feeling comes from.

I didn't know the rangefinder patch moves with paralax correction in a Leica, I can't remember this being the case in the IIIf I once had.

As for the longevity, he says himself we have to postpone this for some five years. I think the shutter well be as good as that in my Yashica FX-D, still alive and kicking after more than 20 years.
 
The ZI feels substantially lighter than the M7, but also less solidly built. This initial impression might be wrong, but is still is there.
Maybe the Z1 should have been compared with a titanium M7? Works for me.
The screws of the ZI are the traditional ones and this is done intentionally to visually link to the legacy of the great CRF tradition.
Yes, the screws do look traditional.
The camera needs more substance and profile in order to become a viable contender in the present RF scene. If the ZI can evolve beyond being seen as an upgraded version of the Bessa and a cheaper cousin of the Leica M, than we have a interesting new player on the stage of the CRF theatre.
What's wrong with my Bessa R3A? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, Yiddish is essentially Mittelhochdeutsch (middle high german) with words basteled in from Hebrew, and turned into a dialect. Jews had traditionally lived in the urban centers of middle Europe, but were kicked out in the 13th and 14th centuries. Living in their isolated communities, their language of course developed a life of its own, and continued as a lingua franca for jews even when they were allowed back into cities. Yiddish was written in hebrew script for no other reason than that there wasn't hardly anybody to read their writing anyway. Even nobles in those days were illiterate, and only the priesthood would have been able to read, a group of people who the jews probablly had no interest in informing. The average jew was literate centuries before the average European, partially because of Talmudic study, and partially because they had to be able to keep records.

Also, a lot of yiddish words made their way into both German and Polish, some of those words have been purged, along with the people that brought them. An example of a word that's still in the German language is schleppen. The swearword Schmuck itself comes from the word schmecken. A great deal of both German and Polish food and culture is actually Jewish, unknown to Germans and Poles.

Growing up, I actually thought Putz meant the foreskin of the penis. I never actually spoke yiddish, but I learned to understand it, as my grandparents used it as a secret language. The implication I thought was that since the foreskin is the one thing Jewish men don't have, it was a double insult: secondly to equate you with a gentile, and firstly to imply that you are a disgarded piece of useless flesh from the penis. But of course I may have misunderstood, or since it's a slang word, it may have many meanings. None of those is really that appropriate to call Mr. Puts, however much of a putz or shill he may be.

Incidentally, since I'm on the history lesson anyway, I might as well point out that not all jews understand Yiddish; besides the obvious examples of jews who never learned it, there are the Sephardim: the jews who came from Spain, and were ejected in 1492, the same year as the Moors. Those jews had spoken the same Spanish as all Spaniards, with the exception that jews included jewish slang. It's an interesting history lesson for linguists to look at Sephardic and Yiddish, because both dialects are very similar, except their added slang words, to medieval Spanish and German, and are also very similar to dialects still found in some mountain towns in Spain and Switzerland.

An example anecdote about the similarity of the dialects of Yiddish and Swiss German is when my grandmother called the wife of one of my professors once...a family friend. My grandmother spoke little to no English, and the woman spoke no Russian. My grandmother knew however from her days in a concentration camp that Bavarian dialect, and even more so Swiss was very similar to Yiddish; since my professor's wife had gotten her doctorate in linguistics in Switzerland, they were able to have an interesting conversation, and one that the professor's wife told me was very surreal, since they were both essentially speaking centuries old dialects, from which modern German derived.
 
Socke said:
After reading his report I think it isn't to bad.

We've heard reports about the ZI not feeling right to long time Leica owners and IMHO Erwin tried to show where this feeling comes from.

I didn't know the rangefinder patch moves with paralax correction in a Leica, I can't remember this being the case in the IIIf I once had.

As for the longevity, he says himself we have to postpone this for some five years. I think the shutter well be as good as that in my Yashica FX-D, still alive and kicking after more than 20 years.

Socke, I'm a Puts fan & I agree that he had some interesting observations. Overall, however, I found his review VERY disappointing because it didn't go into much depth at all. I learned very little that I couldn't have read from other user reports posted here & elsewhere on the net.

If you look at Erwin's review of the M7, it is extraordinarily detailed. There are pictures of the internal construction of the camera. He has one section in this review called "Electromagnetics and a Ballbearing!" Since Zeiss had a new electromagnetic control system designed specifically for this shutter mechanism & because of the comments by Erwin & others about the film advance mechanism, I would have loved seeing something like this "Electromagnetics . . ." section included in the ZI report. There has been much speculative discussion about the build quality of the ZI. Wouldn't it have been great to have him analyze this by actually looking inside the camera & telling us what it is made of & how, complete with pictures.

I was really looking forward to Erwin's review of this camera because I thought that we would get from him what we can't get from anyone else. I wouldn't have cared if he was pro or con, whether he liked the camera or didn't. I'm an information freak & I just wanted facts that I can't get anywhere else. Instead I got one more superficial user report, which is not a bad thing in & of itself - just not what I expected from him. This was a real let down, a complete fizzle.

My only hope now is that Popular Photography might do a review which reveals the internal details of the camera, including pictures. They used to do this kind of report, but they don't do much of it any more either, so my hopes aren't very high.

Huck
 
Last edited:
Huck, you have a point there. Erwins reviews used to be better. I too don't care if he is a good photographer or not when I read his lens reviews as he tries to measure what others define as "glow" :)
 
After reading through these posts it reminds me of the old automobile analogy (at least here in the US):

Either your a Ford man, or a Chevy man - but never both!

Substitue Leica for Ford and Zeiss for Chevy and I think you have the gist of this age-old argument! :D
 
copake_ham said:
After reading through these posts it reminds me of the old automobile analogy (at least here in the US):

Either your a Ford man, or a Chevy man - but never both!

Substitue Leica for Ford and Zeiss for Chevy and I think you have the gist of this age-old argument! :D

Good analogy! I own Leica and Ford. :D

Walker
 
Back
Top Bottom