If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
I downloaded and printed it as soon as I heard about it. I've read it completely, twice over, and still often refer to it. I agree completely with your assessment, Claus. Many people criticize Erwin, usually for reasons that make very little sense, some even claiming that he's paid by Leica. As far as I'm concerned, those guys can go take a flying @$*# at a rolling doughnut!
> Too bad it's the same completely subjective evaluations based on his > opinions of what he sees through his eyes rather than quantified data from a > reliable test apparatus, despite the abundance of scientific-sounding prose. To a > true scientist his "methodology" is laughable, and his acceptance as an > authority incredulous--other than by Leica, as he is a marketing dream: a > volunteer spokesperson.
> > > Posted by Jay (Jay) on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 9:44 pm: > >> Too bad it's the same completely subjective evaluations based on his >> opinions of what he sees through his eyes rather than quantified > data from a > reliable test apparatus, despite the abundance of > scientific-sounding prose. To a > true scientist his "methodology" is > laughable, and his acceptance as an > authority incredulous--other > than by Leica, as he is a marketing dream: a > volunteer spokesperson.
So, Jay, is one to assume that you don't find any value in his evaluations?
Personally, I think a 'scientific' evaluation of an lens designed to take photographs of normal subjects that we encounter in our daily lives (as opposed to purely scientific or technical photographs) would be of little value. But, I would like to see more photos in Erwin's reviews. The best way to evaluate a lens is to see photographs made with it, no?
The idea of requiring purely scientific methods to perform and evaluation of an artistic tool is laughable (to steal your term). I mean, what is the purpose? Quantitative analysis will not provide profound insight into the ability of a tool to aid in the execution of an artistic endeavor. If we just want to know how many line-pairs a lens can resolve, well that would be of some limited interest, but I don't count line pairs in my pictures...
I guess most people have lost interest in this thread by now but I'm new to the forum & have only recently downloaded & read Erwin Put's pdf review. I wouldn't say its unscientific; science is after all systematic analysis of observations & I think EP has done a fairly objective job of describing the "fingerprint" of the lenses, something I'm sure all you seasoned users are aware of. MTF readings & lpm are so much observed data, but how they translate into images is what makes for lens character. For myself I was smitten the first time I tried an older 35 Summicron; the gradation of tone & colour rendition just left my manual focus Nikkors standing. Over the years I have come to understand Leitz lens design philosophy a little better & Erwin's articles have shed some new light on this. My 1 critiscm is that perhaps he could do with a ghost wwriter to improve his syntax.
Happy picture making
Good comment and welcome to the Forum. Like you, my favourite lenses are the chrome Summicrons of the mid sixties. Nevertheless Erwin's objective evaluation has made a considerable improvement in my technique. He has also guided me to lenses I would have not otherwise bought such as the Tri-Elmar-M and the Minilux/Summarit. As to his grammar and syntax, considering Dutch not English is his native language, his command of the latter is excellent, however a bit of proof-reading would certainly help. I copy the articles into MSWord and proof before saving.
My 1 critiscm is that perhaps he could do with a ghost wwriter to improve his syntax.>
As a teacher, I understand and appreciate Erwin Puts sharing (giving) his knowledge to us and I know how much work is required to produce quality reports. I also respect those that speak and write in languages other than theirs, and as such I am considerate. I would never be so disrespectful of an accomplished person as to mention minor mistakes in public. If you have read his publications you would understand that he caring and sensitive person just trying to share his insight and provide a service.
You are right of course about the difficulties of writing in a non-native language; particularly in English with its many peculiarities of form & expression. I apologise unreservedly; I appreciate that a lot of hard work must gave gone into Erwin's publications- a labour of love- & did not mean to belittle his contribution.
No doubt Mr Puts could improve in his English skills. However, I am delighted that he's willing to transfer his technical data and make it available to us. In fairness to Mr. Puts, I also consider his command of English to be acceptable and lucid enough to be understood.