Puts on the Zeiss ikon

Am I missing something here? Having just read the review in question I did not find it particularly objectionable. Given some of the fulminating above I thought he had really panned the ZI.

Mr Puts has his way of doing things and his likes and dislikes. It seems he prefers a heavier camera and a different feel to the wind on/rewind. Otherwise his review seem to rate the camera highly. The conclusion seems a little harsh given that the substance of the criticism is the weight/ wind-on issue and these are really matters of taste and do not reflect actual performance and reliability. Time will tell as far as these are concerned.

Not being lucky enough to own an M series camera I came at the ZI unencumbered by prejudice or expectation as to how things should be. For me the weight thing is not an issue, I use OMs a lot too and so am used to small light cameras (do try the Zuiko 50mm f2 macro - that is one v special lens). The wind on seems fine too, feeling the rotation of the rewind crank lightly brush my left hand as the film winds on coupled wish the slight hiss as the film moves over the pressure plate is sufficient confirmation for me that all is well in that department.

All in all I am happy with the thing, esp the VF which is great for a specky like me.

Let us hope that it is a success for Zeiss, that we still have film to shoot for the foreseeable future and that Leica do not go the way of Konica Minolta, Bronica, Contax, Yashica et al. The photographic world would be an infinitely poorer place without them. I for one do not want to have a camera 'phone as my only option in future!

As for film, who knows - I pray it survives. I for one would have to seriously consider whether I continued professionally if it vanished. The quality of work produced by my digital colleagues (we are talking social photography) is very poor. Strange colour castes, awful skin tones, waxy skin and poor prints are the norm. The professional bodies in the UK have reported a dramatic rise in complaints to them from the public in this regard. Poor quality digital work has been the problem. Now it really says something when joe public are complaining about their wedding prints - I mean they have grown up on prints made by some spotty youth at the local mini lab who did not even look at what he was doing. The digital stuff that is the cause of the complaints must have been truly dreadful. Such a decline in standards is not only depressing but shames the profession.

C
 
C, thank you for a reasoned and reasonable post on the new ZI camera. You make perfect sense without trashing Mr. Puts or the camera or Leica. I wish you well with yours and hope you make great images with it.

I think I've made this observation before but if Mr. Puts is German, as I'm pretty certain he is, I believe his name would be pronounced as if it were spelled "Poots" in English. I could be wrong, of course. I often am. ;)

Walker
 
Wise words Bill.

Walker, many thanks for your kind words. On the subject of Mr Puts' origins, I suspect that he may be Dutch. His web site has a .nl suffix and I believe that to be the one for the Netherlands. Perhaps I should ask! His English is, like that of many of his countrymen, excellent and quite puts me to shame. I do not speak a word of Dutch and struggle badly with French and Spanish. I am, like many of my countrymen, monolingual! On the odd occasion that I have been lucky enough to visit the Netherlands I have found folks from all walks of life fluent in English. Taxi drivers, barmen, the guy selling chips (that's French fries if you are in the US) - all great English.

As for the pronunciation - I cannot help, although there is a thing at the following address that allows one to hear the names of Dutch master painters being said by a Dutchman - http://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/dpainters_wo/twenty_dutch_masterpieces.htm#How to - It might give a clue and is a good site for anyone interested in Dutch art. Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch pronunciation of van Gogh (and indeed the pronunciation he himself would have used) is a million miles from that used in the US. Well you learn a new thing...

Chris
 
CJP6008 said:
Wise words Bill.

Walker, many thanks for your kind words. On the subject of Mr Puts' origins, I suspect that he may be Dutch. His web site has a .nl suffix and I believe that to be the one for the Netherlands. Perhaps I should ask! His English is, like that of many of his countrymen, excellent and quite puts me to shame. I do not speak a word of Dutch and struggle badly with French and Spanish. I am, like many of my countrymen, monolingual! On the odd occasion that I have been lucky enough to visit the Netherlands I have found folks from all walks of life fluent in English. Taxi drivers, barmen, the guy selling chips (that's French fries if you are in the US) - all great English.

As for the pronunciation - I cannot help, although there is a thing at the following address that allows one to hear the names of Dutch master painters being said by a Dutchman - http://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/dpainters_wo/twenty_dutch_masterpieces.htm#How to - It might give a clue and is a good site for anyone interested in Dutch art. Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch pronunciation of van Gogh (and indeed the pronunciation he himself would have used) is a million miles from that used in the US. Well you learn a new thing...

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris, you are correct.
i.gif
NL is the country domain extension for the Netherlands.

Here's a Worldwide Registry List of ccTLDs


R.J.
 
Hi, Bill, there is something here called "Schadenfreude" - glee over someone else's misfortune. This happens when the person deserves it. If the person does not deserve it, we call it "Mitgefühl" or compassion.

Puts probably reads this forum because most of his customary spelling mistakes are gone and we have spoken about that before. He must enjoy having other people talk about him and perhaps he knows that his word choice is effective in cultivating some kind of "fan" club.

His lofty language simply doesn't work in the context he is writing in, however, and so it would feel very embarassing if that were to happen to one of us. We feel his misfortune but also understand that he could have avoided the embarassment by having written his texts in a scientific manner instead of trying to transform himself into a literary genius.

Hence we rejoice in some moments of Schadenfreude. He deserves it because he made it that way by choice.

Do you understand this strange mentality a little better?
 
Kevin said:
Hi, Bill, there is something here called "Schadenfreude" - glee over someone else's misfortune. This happens when the person deserves it.

Hence we rejoice in some moments of Schadenfreude. He (Puts) deserves it because he made it that way by choice.
Click to expand...

It's also possible that Mr. Puts understands the principle that there's no such thing as bad publicity. By being controversial, he creates publicity and thus his exposure to new people is ever widening. His purpose is to have as many people as possible read his material. He would seem to be successful in that regard.

Just a thought.

Walker
 
Hi Bill,

I never said Puts deserves anything. I just said his writing is too verbose for me.
Just wanted to clarify.

Way
 
Kevin said:
but also understand that he could have avoided the embarassment by having written his texts in a scientific manner instead of trying to transform himself into a literary genius.
Click to expand...

Kevin,
but how to talk in a scientific manner about a content in which isn't really scientific ?
In his case content and style are a well chosen combo, related to his intentions at least. The other way round you could say his style reveals his intentions, which are only to feed the emotions of one side. The scientific look is just a thin paint over his
"tests".

bertram
 
Bill,
I'm particularly interested in a point you made (#4), and I quote you:

"I don't understand it. I've asked the question here - even those whom I normally have some respect for seem not to be able to give a reasonable answer. They say: (snip)...
4) I think it is funny to make fun of peoples' names (Putz vice Puts)...(snip)"

Did someone actually write these words in this thread as you assert, because if they did I have missed it. Or is this your own perception based upon the childhood trauma you mention invovling name-calling that apparently you have not resolved into your adulthood. I am a guilty party to the Puts/Putz reference but I do not make a habit of calling people names; in this case Putz happens to sum up my feelings for Puts perfectly.

You also make some blanket assumptions that certainly do not apply to me and I suspect also do not apply to many others. I do not regularly read Puts to hate him; I quit reading Puts years ago after spending just enough time reading his "work" to conclude he is a pompous ass...and that was while I still owned Leica cameras. A pompous ass is my opinion and mine alone -- I don't ask that others share it but many seem to. I also have not listened to Rush's show since his drug problems surfaced...and my dislike for him remains as well. It's about character and integrity, something Rush is completely without.
 
Bill,
My feeling is that too much has been made of this, and I have never had an issue with you personally. I do have a deep dislike for Puts that has nothing to do with the camera he represents; by way of offering my respect to you personally you have my word that I will no longer make any references to the man or his name. Quite frankly he is very much a non-issue in my life because as I stated before I gave him a fair chance, I read him without prejudice and formed my opinions of him entirely on my own years ago with no outside influence. In fact, my opinions of him were formed in an environment that seemed to worship him -- obviously I do not. I have no desire to argue any of these points further because I doubt that we are really at odds when it comes to racial epithets or other derogatory terms...peace? :)
 
I would like to say that I never knew "Putz" was a vulgar term for "Penis". I would also like to add that I originally thought his name was spelled P U T Z. hmmm, my bag.

Glenn
 
He's probably a smart guy but between his gobbledygook and his right wing Leica slant, no thanks. :cool:
 
I also find the ad hominem attacks on Erwin to be useless. I have posted earlier in this thread that I am a Puts fan. I own 2 of his books. He provides a valuable service & when he offers it on the internet, it is free.

I have also said earlier in this thread that I was disappointed with his ZI review because of its superficiality - which stands in sharp contrast with his reviews of Leica equipment & of the new Zeiss lenses. I don't care if he likes this camera - or any camera - but I do expect to receive from him analysis & information that I can't get elsewhere. This review failed miserably in that regard.

Like many others who become lightning rods for one thing or another, Erwin brings a certain amount of this on himself. This review of the ZI was a good example of that because much of it was just plain silly. The silliness deserves a good laugh. :D Here are some examples:

"The ZI feels substantially lighter than my M7, but also less solidly built. This initial impression may be wrong, but is still there."

MAY be wrong?! :rolleyes: I'm sorry, it's bad enough when this stuff appears on message boards, but I expect more of a published author providing a professional review. I expect him to find out if it's wrong or if it's right. I'd like to know. He compounds this nonsense by going on to claim that the shininess of the metal finsish contributes to the perception of "lightness" - an adept play on words, especially for a man whose English is a second language, but pure nonsense all the same. And he can't leave this denigration alone. It becomes a theme in the review as he goes on to say:

"Handling the camera from a tactile point of view gives one the impression of lightness verging on the brink of cheapness. This is a pity as the camera as a whole is most pleasurable to use and a joy to own."

Erwin needs to make up his mind here. Is the ZI "cheap" - which to most people means junk - or is it a "joy to own"? From one extreme of hyperbole to the other. The disappointment here is that Erwin knows better. He says that the major reason for the camera's weight is due to the use of magnesium. He wrote in his review of the Leica R9 about how Leica was able to achieve weight reduction through the use of magnesium in the top cover. He explains in great detail how Leica was able to overcome the limitations of magnesium as a metal through a complex manufacturing process that took place in 3 different countries. In the case of the R9, he describes magnesium as "a very high cost material." That doesn't sound like "cheap" to me. But that was when he was describing its use by Leica. Of course, all of this begs the question of why a camera's weight should give the impression of "cheapness" to begin with. Did God in heaven determine a magical ideal weight for a camera? For some people & in certain uses, lighter weight becomes a desirable alternative. What these comments about weight reveal is that the entire review is written by way of comparison with the M7, not simply as a description & evaluation of the ZI as a camera in its own right. Nonetheless, Erwin goes on to say:

"The ZI is an independent design and should not be interpreted as a cheaper competitor to the Leica M series."

I wish that he had taken hiw own advice. As noted in my first quote, the lack of desirability of the weight is determined by comparison with the M7. He further criticizes the body contours, the depth of the body, & the glossiness of the finish all by comparison with the M7. He then concludes the following:

"If the ZI can evolve beyond being seen as an upgraded version of the Bessa and a cheaper cousin of the Leica M, then we have an interesting new player on the stage of the CRF theater."

Flowery language aside, who the heck is seeing the ZI as a "cheaper cousin of the Leica M"? Well . . . anyone who just read Erwin's review. He just told us in my previous quote that it shouldn't be viewed this way, but in this last sentence of his review, he says that this is exactly where it is & that it needs to somehow "evolve beyond that" - whatever that means.

Again, Erwin needs to make up his mind. In his concluding paragraph, he says the following:

"If pure photography is your goal and computer assisted manipulation not your specialty, then the ZI and its lenses can create superb pictures in the time honored tradition of the straight (documentary) photography. The camera is not perfect in its present incarnation. The camera needs more substance and profile in order to become a viable contender on the present RF scene."

"Not perfect in its present incarnation?" Of course not because we know from Mr. Puts' review of the M7 where perfection lies since he titled that review: "One Step Closer to Perfection." It needs "more substance and profile?" Meaning that it needs to be more like an M7 - as stated in the body of his review. Once again all of this begs the bigger question of why it needs any of this since he had just finished saying that it's perfectly capable of "creat(ing) superb pictures." What more does he want?

Tom Abrahamsson was clear, specific, & detailed in his description of the shortcomings of the ZI from his point of view. Erwin unfortunately is vague with his vapid references to "cheapness," "feel," & the need for it to "evolve." He only adds to his confusing presentation when these remarks are contrasted with the following:

"(The ZI) will appeal to seasoned photographers who want to enjoy the pleasures and results of a finely engineered mechanical precision camera, coupled to a range of ZI lenses that do sit at the top of the market performance wise . . ."

Huh? Make up your mind, Erwin. Is it "cheap" or a "highly engineered mechanical predision camera"?

And now for the ultimate in silliness - just a pure "Erwinism" - is the following quote, which is his conclusion of a discussion about the film advance lever:

"I have dwelled some time on this topic as it is one of the more important aspects to deal with when analising a mechanical camera. The mental act of preparing for the next photo is set between the moment that the shutter is pressed and the film is wound on for the next exposure. The CRF is famous for its propensity to synchronise the compositional state of the scene and the mental state of the phtographer. The mechanical movements of the camera should not distract from this synchronisation. The "emptiness" of the transport does interfere with the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF."

Ohhh, Momma! :eek: Be still my heart! :rolleyes: Why have I been wasting my time paying attention to my subject? Why have I concerned my self with managing exposure? Erwin has just introduced "the zen of the film advance." I should have been concerning myself with meditation between shots. :D Okay, I apologise for the sarcasm. It's just too much fun to resist. It's all such silliness from an author who goes to great pains to use a scientific approach in his evaluation of optics. We've come 180 degrees from MTF charts & lines per meter to Zen & meditation.

I will continue to read Erwin for his discussion of optics, which involves superb analysis. But his review of this camera leaves me flat while at the same time regaling me with laughter. It's a shame because his reviews of Leica cameras have shown that he can do so much better.

Huck
 
Last edited:
I would like to say that I never knew "Putz" was a vulgar term for "Penis"
Click to expand...
This ding-dong term is "Wussa" in German, "putka" in Ukrainian and "kear" in Farsi. :cool:
 
Frank: German/Ukrainian/Iranian?
Now that I know I'm a right-winger for having Leica stuff.....maybe I should buy some Zorki's and Feds........
Great thread: " How do your politics influence your RF preference?"
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom