Summarit lenses, part two by Erwin Puts is now up

[infocusf8@earthlink.]

Say What?

Say What?

Sitemistic here's what you said,
Yeah, this is the article where Puts says the M8 can't focus accurately.
Here's what Erwin said,
Accurate focusing of the rangefinder camera relies heavily on the operator experience and the accuracy of the camera. The M8 has some disadvantages compared to the M7, MP and previous models. The sensor surface does not allow for any depth of focus and the rangefinder magnification (at 0.68) is on the edge and some would even say over the edge for accurate focusing.
If your going to accept this ambiguous statement as truth then you must also accept this statement made by him,
Test after test it can be shown that the AF system is not reliable and accurate, but in most scenes there will be a sharpness plane and that is enough.
So can we conclude then that none of your Canons focus correctly and that Canon has been making flawed products? Or for that matter any AF camera. Should all AF SLR and DSLR owners demand a new replacement for their flawed cameras? Should we find a Canon users site and rattle their cages?
But we know this is not true because we have both used AF cameras and have seen results with our own eyes. I own an M8, as do other users here on this forum, that I do recall is an M8 forum. I have no focusing problems with my M8 and I haven't seen any complaints from M8 owners yet except a few who adapted Canon 0.95 lenses to their cameras and they had them calibrated to work. I see by your list of gear that you do not own an M8 so why do you feel an authority on a camera that you do not own or use? Why do you selectively use an ambiguous statement to make a snide comment on a forum for users of a camera that you do not own or use? It seems to me you really serve no productive purpose here other than your own amusement.

 

[ferider]

1) "The sensor surface does not allow for any depth of focus"; this is BS. The projected focus plane is a plane, also in the film surface which is thicker than a sensor surface.

2) The shorter EBL of the M8 combined with the crop factor leading to effectively longer lenses and less DOF makes it hard to focus a 75/2.5 and 90/2.5, which effectively are 100/2.5 and 120/2.5 lenses on the M8. If you have ever focused a 135/2.8 with eyes on an M3 (EBL = 1.3) you know what Puts means. Nothing to do with the M8 per se. Nobody would dare focusing a 120/2.5 on a .58 MP, for instance. Put a 90/2.5 on a Bessa R2 or Leica CL and you will have similar problems.

3) Start a thread on the Noctilux, a Puts review, digital vs film, medium format vs 35mm, and you can be sure it will be locked by a moderator at some point .... 🙄

Roland.

 

[ferider]

I didn't see Puts in that paragraph make a distinction of use with a particular lens. Seemed like a general statement to me. So, for all the reasons you state, is it impossible to focus a Noctilux on an M8?

He explicitely separates 75 and 90:

The 75 and the 90 are excellent in themselves but compared to the apo versions they have some aspects to take account of. The basic issue in my view is the accuracy of focusing.

Yes, the Noctilux must be difficult to handle wide open on an M8. On the
other hand, you can focus bracket much easier with a digital than with
a film camera ...

The most difficult lenses to focus on M8 are 75/2, 75/1.4, 90/2 and longer/faster. Which is
why 90/2 prices have come down in the past few months. Great time to buy (which I did) 🙂

Roland.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Puts has been accused in the past of being both ignorant and of being a total film biggot. Put those two together and you have an M8 that can't be brought to focus.

/T
Disclaimer: I have no idea if Puts is ignorant. He does seem to be a film biggot from his writings.

I know Erwin Puts very well and regard him as an authority on anything to do with optics and certainly on Leica's. I can also assure you he is not ignorant. He likes film but also uses digital. Try to read some more articles on his website.
It is very clear that the M8 has a shorter EBL and therefore is less accurate compared to camera's with longer EBL. Same way the Cl is less accurate then a M3. The M8 will be off course accurate enough most of the times.
He doesn't say all Canon's are flawed. But you all must have had wrong , slow and seeking auto focusing.
Just read his articles, use what you like, forget what you don't like and just don't be so itchy.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[Ben Z]

What I'd really like to see is a comparison between the 75 Summarit and the 75 Heliar, and also one between the 90 Summarit and the more recent non-APO Elmarit. I think realistically that those are the more likely competitors.

 

[kevin m]

What I'd really like to see is a comparison between the 75 Summarit and the 75 Heliar..

Sign up for Reid Reviews and read his comparison of the Heliar to the 75 Summicron. I believe he said something to the effect of 'Voigtlander should start charging more so people will take them seriously.'

 

[Ben Z]

Thanks, I do subscribe to Sean's site and I did read his article. In fact it spurred me to bite on a "Bargain" 75 Heliar for <$200 when one popped up at KEH.com. It's a fine lens, not even needing to add "for the price". I would still like to see a direct comparison with the Summarit though. It's approximate enough looking at web shots, let alone trying to extrapolate between Erwin's Cron-vs-Rit and Sean's Cron-vs-CV. Then again, I have the CV, so if someone would be kind enough to loan me their Summarit for a few weeks....😀 Actually I had a 75 Summarit in my hand, but it was an un-coded demo and they weren't allowing anyone to shoot with it 😕

 

[ferider]

I really liked the Heliar when I had it and have never seen bad comments on it.

But here is the real problem of the 75 Summarit: why would you buy it if you
can get a good used 75/2 or even 75/1.4 for just a little more money ?

 

[TJV]

I really liked the Heliar when I had it and have never seen bad comments on it.

But here is the real problem of the 75 Summarit: why would you buy it if you
can get a good used 75/2 or even 75/1.4 for just a little more money ?

Because those lenses are massive in comparison?

 

[ferider]

Because those lenses are massive in comparison?

In other words, you really need both ? 😀

 

[MikeL]

3) Start a thread on the Noctilux, a Puts review, digital vs film, medium format vs 35mm, and you can be sure it will be locked by a moderator at some point .... 🙄

Roland.

Don't forget the M8. That's what I like about the Nikon, Leica Thread Mount, and other sub forums. Fewer people with chips on their shoulder about something.

 

[Richard Marks]

I know Erwin Puts very well and regard him as an authority on anything to do with optics and certainly on Leica's. I can also assure you he is not ignorant. He likes film but also uses digital. Try to read some more articles on his website.
It is very clear that the M8 has a shorter EBL and therefore is less accurate compared to camera's with longer EBL. Same way the Cl is less accurate then a M3. The M8 will be off course accurate enough most of the times.
He doesn't say all Canon's are flawed. But you all must have had wrong , slow and seeking auto focusing.
Just read his articles, use what you like, forget what you don't like and just don't be so itchy.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

I do not think that there is any doubt that Mr Putts is very knowledgeable. The thing that I have always been a bit concerned by is his example photographs. These are often somewhat un inspiring. I am sure that he does not claim to be a great photographer, but surely some one could throw him a few better images.

Richard

 

[infocusf8@earthlink.]

Operator Error

Operator Error

If you read Erwins preamble paragraph on focusing what he is talking about, and doesn't want to say it, is operator error which also includes him. Even he can make mistakes in focusing which might skew the results. The article was not meant to be a statement about the M8 focus but a controlled test of the lenses. sitemistik if you read what I said then you know what I stated about focus and it has nothing to do with over or under any edge which Erwin has not defined i.e. back focus, front focus? As far as the Canon AF and Erwins statements I would suggest to you that before you interpret something out of context that you secure an M8 and decide for yourself or stop throwing stones from that glass house of yours. That being said the results of the 35 and 50 were very impressive. Although the 75 and 90 did not appear to fair as well against their counterparts I've seen images from both and they were impressive.

 

[cmogi10]

Wisdom is owned by pros exclusively?😛

Never said anything about pro's... but is Put's even a photographer? or an "Optical Scientist"


😱