Who is Erwin Puts?

[Rob-F]

I have his Leica Lens Compendium. I've learned a lot by reading Erwin. If there is anything about his writing to criticize, I think he puts too much emphasis on resolving power. Lenses have other attributes as well. He says little or nothing about color fidelity, etc. He seems to use inductive reasoning to predict what a lens is about by examining its MTF curves. And he dwells on minute hair-splitting differences that will not even be noticed in hand-held photography. But the differences he describes are real. With the camera on a tripod, I can see the difference between my 40 year-old 90mm Elmarit, and my Summicron AA.

Bottom line, his assessments of lenses are accurate.

 

[cmogi10]

With the camera on a tripod, I can see the difference between my 40 year-old 90mm Elmarit, and my Summicron AA.

I would sure hope so or that's a rather expensive redundancy.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Remember that Mr. Puts is Dutch and that English is not his native language.

Nor is it mine. He's also been writing longer than I've been alive. There's got to be a different excuse...

 

[Melvin]

I'm still trying to figure out if "edifying" is a good thing or something very, very bad....

Heh, heh... point taken, I've "corrected" my original post.

What I really wanted to know is what Puts' credentials are. Usually when you read something by an expert it says something like "so and so is Dean of the College of Molecular Metaphysics and is a frequent contributor to Brick-a-brackology Quarterly". Does he have any formal training in optics or engineering? No one seems to know.

Just curious, it wouldn't change my opinion of his reviews.

 

[Ronald_H]

Nor is it mine. He's also been writing longer than I've been alive. There's got to be a different excuse...

Agreed. It isn't mine either.

Like Mr. Puts, I am Dutch. I never read anything from him written in the Dutch language. I would like to...

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

About two years ago didn't he make a dramatic and sudden announcement that he was retiring?

And then carried on writing?

 

[Freakscene]

I'm amazed you don't just ask. You can contact him through his site:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/contact/page110.php

Or call him if you can fingure out which E. Puts he is (if that is his real name):
http://whitepages.goudengids.nl/search/puts,_e..html;jsessionid=2BA190A8519A95EB2139FB3CF63E0414

It can't hurt . . .

 

[George S.]

Melvin,
Just having some fun with ya, because you made my brain work!

 

[mhv]

He seems to use inductive reasoning to predict what a lens is about by examining its MTF curves.

Actually, that would be "deductive" reasoning: he starts from the theory, and try to logically infer a practical conclusion. (from general to particular)

"Inductive" reasoning would be instead to collect a sample of data, and try to infer a general law out of it (from particular to general).

Just FYI.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Erwin writes with the presupposition that Leica is the standard against everything else should be judged. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with this as a starting point.

He usually basis his remarks on graphs and technical specs, but he does often seen to contradict himself with subjective comments like "X brad lens rivals the Leica's performance" and later stating "X brand lacks the brilliance of the Leica." For example, see his review of the 25mm ZM, where he compares it to the 24mm M Asph, on his website.

Still, I find his comments telling and helpful. His words often indicate to me he is having difficulty giving the Leica the upper hand. And in those cases where Leica has no competition (such as the 15mm ZM - at least at the time the review was written), he is quite generous with his praise.

OTOH, I have noticed more recently he does this less - giving the X brand lens the credit it deserves without apology or "translation."

 

[Rob-F]

Actually, that would be "deductive" reasoning: he starts from the theory, and try to logically infer a practical conclusion. (from general to particular)

"Inductive" reasoning would be instead to collect a sample of data, and try to infer a general law out of it (from particular to general).

Just FYI.

Yeah, you are right. I don't know why I chose to say it was inductive. I should know better--my wife teaches critical thinking in her job as a philosophy professor. In fact, I think she told me they don't even talk about inductive reasoning any more. However, I learned it the way you did: induction is going from the general to the specific.

What I wanted to say is that you can't tell everything about a lens by looking at an MTF chart. Just as you can't tell everything about how an amplifier sounds by looking at the lab test results. One measures what one knows how to measure--not necessarily all that's relevant.

 

[mhv]

Yeah, you are right. I don't know why I chose to say it was inductive. I should know better--my wife teaches critical thinking in her job as a philosophy professor. In fact, I think she told me they don't even talk about inductive reasoning any more. However, I learned it the way you did: induction is going from the general to the specific.

What I wanted to say is that you can't tell everything about a lens by looking at an MTF chart. Just as you can't tell everything about how an amplifier sounds by looking at the lab test results. One measures what one knows how to measure--not necessarily all that's relevant.

Yes, I think the meaning was nonetheless clear despite the vocabulary fluke. Tell me more about "not teaching inductive reasoning anymore" ?