sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Howard French and Erwin Puts pontificate on articles that, it seems, they've never read. See the featured comments here: The Online Photographer: Leica M9 Links I've long had trouble taking Mr. Puts seriously but he just dropped another notch. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here The Sour Grapes Duo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted September 12, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 12, 2009 Thanks a lot, man. You've just directed me to some wonderful comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 12, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, I'm struggling to see the sour grapes from Erwin that you mention. A few quotes from him in the link that you've provided... "The M8 had and has its problems, but the current analysis is about the M9, where a number if problems (IR, frame lines, etc.) have been reduced or even eliminated. The M9 is a definite improvement in functionality and handling flexibility" then... "In the short time I had, I can only reflect on the more philosophical aspects of the M9. That the IR problem is not fully resolved is no surprise to me, as several high-end DSLRs also exhibit this problem. I also have to note—and this is really an important issue—that is it quite easy nowadays to show defects of whatever order of magnitude without anyone posing the question of their relevance." These seem both correct and sensible to me, am I missing something? Paid access to his opinions maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
okram Posted September 12, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 12, 2009 Do not spend any energy on these comments, the authors speak more about themselves then of anybody else. Nor Reichmann, nor Askey wrote any positive review about M8, and yours I found, at the time the most balanced one- this is too mild- the only relevant M8 review a the time was yours; LL and Dpreview made deep mistakes at the time that can only be made by superficial observation (attitude too) about for what the ones camera is used for, and how it should be used. This should not be extracted from the reviews foundations and it is too obvious to be missed. Every aspect of your writing shows sincereness and it can not be overseen by anybody who reads it. If you are biased it is sincere and it is also a part of a review- many relevant things about (especially this) camera cannot or hardly can be written in such form. Do not spend energy on THIS writing too, and put the part two already- I believe many people are waiting eagerly. m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, I'm struggling to see the sour grapes from Erwin that you mention. A few quotes from him in the link that you've provided... "The M8 had and has its problems, but the current analysis is about the M9, where a number if problems (IR, frame lines, etc.) have been reduced or even eliminated. The M9 is a definite improvement in functionality and handling flexibility" then... "In the short time I had, I can only reflect on the more philosophical aspects of the M9. That the IR problem is not fully resolved is no surprise to me, as several high-end DSLRs also exhibit this problem. I also have to note—and this is really an important issue—that is it quite easy nowadays to show defects of whatever order of magnitude without anyone posing the question of their relevance." These seem both correct and sensible to me, am I missing something? Paid access to his opinions maybe? Let me get this new section uploaded and then I'll give you the quotes you've asked for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 12, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) Well, Sean, the Put man has been around talking about Leica b4 anyone of us started doing reviews on Leica equipment as a business. So, give him a break. He is more experienced and has more history with the brand. And, the best part of it is that he does not do it as a business and so, he doesn't care what the reader thinks. Edited September 12, 2009 by arthury Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatboy Posted September 12, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, Sean, the Put man has been around talking about Leica b4 anyone of us started doing reviews on Leica equipment as a business. So, give him a break. He has more experienced and has more history with the brand. And, the best part of it is that he does not do it as a business and so, he does care what the reader thinks. Doesn't make him right always though. but I'll give him a break! I filter all and every review on anything I read about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 12, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 12, 2009 Let me get this new section uploaded and then I'll give you the quotes you've asked for. I'll be interested to read what you say. Howard French says that Leica chose the people to have a pre-release version of the M9 to ensure that they got positive opinions - which is fine by me, but I can't see no evidence of the slander that you lay against Erwin as I see nothing that suggests that he's pontificating on an article he's never read. Again maybe I've misunderstood what you've said, or what he's written. I loot forward to the quotes that prove me wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted September 12, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 12, 2009 Well folks, in the end they are only cameras and regardless of what Puts or anyone says early on, good or bad, the truth will out via the thousands of users who actually pay for a camera and use it for real photography. I'll remind everyone of the poor review that Erwin gave the Nokton 35 F1.2 years ago...in the end the market decided he was full of beans and the lens is now a well respected tool for many photographers. I wouldn't put TOO much weight on what any on-line or in print reviewer says. You should always try a system for yourself and make your own choices. If your main interest is camera reviews and equipment, fine, then reading this stuff is your hobby. If your main interest is creating the best photography you can, I'd say Leica has given you some fine tools to use. Best wishes Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 12, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 12, 2009 'll remind everyone of the poor review that Erwin gave the Nokton 35 F1.2 years ago...in the end the market decided he was full of beans and the lens is now a well respected tool for many photographers. Then again after reading Erwin's Leica Lens companion I certainly think he has 'the handle' on Leica lenses at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted September 12, 2009 I'll be interested to read what you say. Howard French says that Leica chose the people to have a pre-release version of the M9 to ensure that they got positive opinions - which is fine by me, but I can't see no evidence of the slander that you lay against Erwin as I see nothing that suggests that he's pontificating on an article he's never read. Again maybe I've misunderstood what you've said, or what he's written. I loot forward to the quotes that prove me wrong. The ISO section is now live so I can come back to this. 99% of the flack one takes on the web isn't worth paying any attention to. In this case, a spade should be called a spade. Here's the key quote: (those not interested in the discussion can certainly ignore this) ""Howard French is indeed absolutely to the point with his comments. Truly independent reporting is a scarce element in the current internet information explosion." Then read Howard's comments. Maybe not slander for Erwin but sour grapes for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted September 12, 2009 Well, Sean, the Put man has been around talking about Leica b4 anyone of us started doing reviews on Leica equipment as a business. So, give him a break. He is more experienced and has more history with the brand. And, the best part of it is that he does not do it as a business and so, he doesn't care what the reader thinks. Thats all well and good but it doesn't excuse some of what he writes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted September 12, 2009 Thanks a lot, man. You've just directed me to some wonderful comments. Glad you enjoyed them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted September 12, 2009 Do not spend any energy on these comments, the authors speak more about themselves then of anybody else.Nor Reichmann, nor Askey wrote any positive review about M8, and yours I found, at the time the most balanced one- this is too mild- the only relevant M8 review a the time was yours; LL and Dpreview made deep mistakes at the time that can only be made by superficial observation (attitude too) about for what the ones camera is used for, and how it should be used. This should not be extracted from the reviews foundations and it is too obvious to be missed. Every aspect of your writing shows sincereness and it can not be overseen by anybody who reads it. If you are biased it is sincere and it is also a part of a review- many relevant things about (especially this) camera cannot or hardly can be written in such form. Do not spend energy on THIS writing too, and put the part two already- I believe many people are waiting eagerly. m Thanks for the thoughts but this is one battle that's worth at least a little time. BTW, the section you were waiting for is up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 12, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean is not talking about what Puts said in his M9 review, but about what Howard French had to say about online reviewers and the problems with the M8, in The Online Photographer article that Sean linked to. Puts then went out of his way to say he agreed with Howard French. French's comment was essentially an unnecessary attack on Sean and Michael Reichmann. For what it's worth, I think French has his head where the sun don't shine, but maybe that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 12, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 12, 2009 Thats all well and good but it doesn't excuse some of what he writes. Yes, sometimes he is a little off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean is not talking about what Puts said in his M9 review, but about what Howard French had to say about online reviewers and the problems with the M8, in The Online Photographer article that Sean linked to. Puts then went out of his way to say he agreed with Howard French. French's comment was essentially an unnecessary attack on Sean and Michael Reichmann. For what it's worth, I think French has his head where the sun don't shine, but maybe that's just me. Phil Askey and David Farkas as well but you nailed it. And, no it is not just you. Howard French just confirmed to me in an e-mail that he's actually never read my review. That apparently didn't discourage him from his diatribe. I wonder if he actually read any of the reviews he chose to pontificate about. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephengilbert Posted September 12, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, Is it your position that Howard French's comments are out of line? Would there be any circumstances where a product manufacturer arranges a junket for reviewers or hand picks reviewers that you would find inappropriate? At the very least, the circumstances French complains of invite his sort of complaint. Didn't you have to defend yourself after the M8 launch against claims that you covered up issues that Leica told you would be dealt with? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #19 Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) Sean, Is it your position that Howard French's comments are out of line? Would there be any circumstances where a product manufacturer arranges a junket for reviewers or hand picks reviewers that you would find inappropriate? At the very least, the circumstances French complains of invite his sort of complaint. Didn't you have to defend yourself after the M8 launch against claims that you covered up issues that Leica told you would be dealt with? Steve Second question first: Answer: No, that was another reviewer. I was criticized for publishing pictures that showed IR and not recognizing it for being IR. They're still there. Of course several thousand people also saw those pictures and didn't see the IR contamination either. I then began the most extensive set of writing on M8 IR, filters, cyan drift, etc. that has been published anywhere on the web or in print. All of that, moreover, was begun before most people had even published their reviews. I was also part of the thread discussions where the IR was first discovered and I was the person who brought the issue to Leica and asked for explanations. I take it you are interested in factual information and not Internet legend, right? Some people seem to prefer the latter and would rather not take the time to check facts. French has said, in an e-mail to me, that he has not actually read my reviews. He may have read none of the writers reviews. The "Junket" you refer to is called a press trip and it does not guarantee anything. I'll let the other reviewers speak for themselves but my review is objective and looks at some problems that haven't even made it to forum discussion yet. Objective and negative are not the same thing. The task is to show the weaknesses and the strengths. Edited September 12, 2009 by sean_reid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 12, 2009 Well folks, in the end they are only cameras and regardless of what Puts or anyone says early on, good or bad, the truth will out via the thousands of users who actually pay for a camera and use it for real photography. I'll remind everyone of the poor review that Erwin gave the Nokton 35 F1.2 years ago...in the end the market decided he was full of beans and the lens is now a well respected tool for many photographers. I wouldn't put TOO much weight on what any on-line or in print reviewer says. You should always try a system for yourself and make your own choices. If your main interest is camera reviews and equipment, fine, then reading this stuff is your hobby. If your main interest is creating the best photography you can, I'd say Leica has given you some fine tools to use. Best wishes Dan Yes. I used the 35/1.2 a while and have to agree with Erwin. The market didn't decide he was full of beans or whatever, they just bought it for whatever reason. That doesn't make it the be-all and end-all. It's a decent lens and an excellent value, but no superlens. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts