veraikon Posted May 29, 2011 Share #1 Posted May 29, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lindemanns in Stuttgart announced a second revised edition of Puts´ Leica Compendium in late August. Lindemanns is not only a bookseller but also an editor. Perhaps they took over the edition Leica Compendium / Erwin Puts Leica Compendium 2., korrigierte und ergänzte Auflage. Houten 2011 Bestell-Nummer: 64161L gebunden, 21 x 29,5 cm Neu : folgt sofort bei Erscheinen (08/2011) ca. EUR 78.00 Suche :Puts Lindemanns Buchhandlung Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 Hi veraikon, Take a look here Leica Compendium 2nd Edition announced. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Double Negative Posted May 31, 2011 Share #2 Posted May 31, 2011 Nicht nur mehr davon, sonder auch korrigiert... Interessant! Vielleicht auch gut das ich die erste Runde nicht geschafft habe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted May 31, 2011 Share #3 Posted May 31, 2011 I hope they fix all the atrocious typos in the first edition. You'd think Puts could have at least ran the text through a spell checker or hired a proofreader. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted May 31, 2011 Share #4 Posted May 31, 2011 I hope they fix all the atrocious typos in the first edition. You'd think Puts could have at least ran the text through a spell checker or hired a proofreader. The latest Osterloh version (Leica M Advanced Photo School) is not much better; lots of little typos and editing mistakes. Granted, English might not be their native language... But an English-proficient proofreader might have been good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted May 31, 2011 Share #5 Posted May 31, 2011 Typos are not my biggest concern about the present edition of Mr. Puts' new compendium. If I happen to see a typo I greet it as a well known acqaintance from my own typing. It's just the simple facts. If I look at page 108 I find a table with numbers of rangefinder production of Canon and Leitz from 1950 to 1961. This is quite interesting, as it is the only source I know where such a comparison is tried, which could give you an idea of further development of the camera market. The numbers for Leitz are very astonishing: e.g. 80059 cameras in 1956: When I look into the the Leica Pocketbook (7th edition), whose co-author was Erwin Puts, I find the following numbers for 1956: M3 22550; MP 11; IIIf 14967, IIf 3999, If 3900 (exactly the same numbers which Laney gives in his Collector's guide), which adds up to 45427 - a difference of almost 35.000 to the number in the Compendium. This doesn't seem to be a typo as Puts himself utters his doubts about this number in the text next to the table. Though I ask myself: why does he give this number of more than 80000 without saying why the Laney numbers are wrong? He just says that he "personally would dare to question the extremely high figure of f-type cameras..." What does a reader do with numbers, which the author personally would dare to question and which do contradict other sources - for which the author of the Compendium himself gave his name as co-author? The lecture of the book becomes even more stunning, if you don't look just on the table on page 108, but read on page 87, that in 1955 Leitz produced 40.000 cameras. The table on page 108 says 68,951 for 1955. Lets check again with the Laney numbers in the Pocket Book and the Collector's guide: IIIf 10000, IIf 7000, If 4000, M3 49491, sums up to 70491 - again another number. If we look at the numbers for Canon in the table on p. 108 numbers, we see an asterix for the years from 1956 to 1961 to indicate estimates. We don't learn from the book on what these estimates are based. So the whole table is a comparison between unexplained estimates and highly disputable numbers, which the author personally would dispute and which contradict other numbers he gives himself in the book and which others have given elsewhere. I personally would dare to question the value of this sort of informaton in a book. If you read you'll find many other examples of this, where you ask yourself: is it only an agglomeration of typos, or is it just wrong? The list of "all new designs for the M- and S-systems" (of lenses since 2000) on p. 153 is one of many of those examples. Data to make up such a list is easily available. How Leica names it's lenses is also no secret - even if they often have typos in their own publications. Everybody who has the book can try how many typos, wrong insertions and omissions of very well known lenses she or he will find in this list on p 153 in one minute. If this list was missing I'd miss nothing in the book. Though the author seems to think different about the importance of such a list, as he makes a point of praising the person who was responsible at Leica for those lenses. So why doesn't he care more about the content of such an information in his book? So many dates and numbers wrong or at least highly disputable, that I am at a loss. I cannot and will not trust any factual information given in the book, which I cannot verify elsewhere. On p. 136 I read that research for the R8 since 1989 has cost 25M DM (12.5 M €) already. This is a very interesting information, if one compares it to 30M € investment for the S2 on p.145. If those numbers are right, they could end the whole debate about the R-system. If just the research for one SLR-camera costed more than a third of the investment of a complete new system, they were mad in the early nineties not to stop the R-system at once. But as I have no chance to verify those numbers for costs I don't know whether these numbers are typos, unbased estimates or just wrong. I cannot trust this book as long as facts are concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
veraikon Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share #6 Posted June 1, 2011 Vielleicht auch gut das ich die erste Runde nicht geschafft habe. .. ich habe es leider in die erste Runde geschafft. I was one of the 1250 buyers of the first edition. Hmmm honestly, I ´d preffered to be a buyer of the second "improved" edition. But I won´t buy it - why?. But as I have no chance to verify those numbers for costs I don't know whether these numbers are typos, unbased estimates or just wrong. I cannot trust this book as long as facts are concerned. Personnaly I don´t believe that the major weaks of the new compendium could be healed within the short time till August 2011. I don´t speak about the typos (which I presume won´t appear in the 2nd edition) it is more the lack of clarity in content as UliWer listed above. I´am hoping on a third major improved Edition in 2015/6/7... with references ... But , I stay on my remark : the compendium is still a great book - but it has the potential to be greater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted June 1, 2011 Share #7 Posted June 1, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there a table of contents posted anywhere? I am also wondering what is the author's academic background. I have read some of the internet articles, but none of the books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
veraikon Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted June 1, 2011 a) Is there a table of contents posted anywhere? I am also wondering what is the author's academic background. I have read some of the internet articles, but none of the books. a) I don´t believe it He works as free author and IMHO he is teaching as far as I know theory and history of sciences at a university in the Netherlands (but last is hearsay...) I don´t know if he more jobs... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted June 1, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 1, 2011 Is there a table of contents posted anywhere? It's on the Blog of Mr. Puts website: Blog Scroll down the page. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 1, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 1, 2011 ... I am also wondering what is the author's academic background... He has an academic degree, but I don't know in what field. See second sentence at Blog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
veraikon Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted June 2, 2011 He works as free author and IMHO he is teaching as far as I know theory and history of sciences at a university in the Netherlands (but last is hearsay...) I don´t know if he has more jobs... in addition: Erwin Puts hat Wissenschaftstheorie gelehrt, im Bereich KI geforscht und arbeitet heute als Unternehmensberater. Olaf Stefanus in LFI 4/2011 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #12 Posted June 3, 2011 A.I., history of science, article on Socrates ... think I can guess. Far as I know, this and Osterloh are the only technical books on rangefinders, unless there is something out of print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hooper Posted June 16, 2011 Share #13 Posted June 16, 2011 Typos are not my biggest concern about the present edition of Mr. Puts' new compendium. If I happen to see a typo I greet it as a well known acqaintance from my own typing. It's just the simple facts. If I look at page 108 I find a table with numbers of rangefinder production of Canon and Leitz from 1950 to 1961. This is quite interesting, as it is the only source I know where such a comparison is tried, which could give you an idea of further development of the camera market. The numbers for Leitz are very astonishing: e.g. 80059 cameras in 1956: When I look into the the Leica Pocketbook (7th edition), whose co-author was Erwin Puts, I find the following numbers for 1956: M3 22550; MP 11; IIIf 14967, IIf 3999, If 3900 (exactly the same numbers which Laney gives in his Collector's guide), which adds up to 45427 - a difference of almost 35.000 to the number in the Compendium. This doesn't seem to be a typo as Puts himself utters his doubts about this number in the text next to the table. Though I ask myself: why does he give this number of more than 80000 without saying why the Laney numbers are wrong? He just says that he "personally would dare to question the extremely high figure of f-type cameras..." What does a reader do with numbers, which the author personally would dare to question and which do contradict other sources - for which the author of the Compendium himself gave his name as co-author? The lecture of the book becomes even more stunning, if you don't look just on the table on page 108, but read on page 87, that in 1955 Leitz produced 40.000 cameras. The table on page 108 says 68,951 for 1955. Lets check again with the Laney numbers in the Pocket Book and the Collector's guide: IIIf 10000, IIf 7000, If 4000, M3 49491, sums up to 70491 - again another number. If we look at the numbers for Canon in the table on p. 108 numbers, we see an asterix for the years from 1956 to 1961 to indicate estimates. We don't learn from the book on what these estimates are based. So the whole table is a comparison between unexplained estimates and highly disputable numbers, which the author personally would dispute and which contradict other numbers he gives himself in the book and which others have given elsewhere. I personally would dare to question the value of this sort of informaton in a book. If you read you'll find many other examples of this, where you ask yourself: is it only an agglomeration of typos, or is it just wrong? The list of "all new designs for the M- and S-systems" (of lenses since 2000) on p. 153 is one of many of those examples. Data to make up such a list is easily available. How Leica names it's lenses is also no secret - even if they often have typos in their own publications. Everybody who has the book can try how many typos, wrong insertions and omissions of very well known lenses she or he will find in this list on p 153 in one minute. If this list was missing I'd miss nothing in the book. Though the author seems to think different about the importance of such a list, as he makes a point of praising the person who was responsible at Leica for those lenses. So why doesn't he care more about the content of such an information in his book? So many dates and numbers wrong or at least highly disputable, that I am at a loss. I cannot and will not trust any factual information given in the book, which I cannot verify elsewhere. On p. 136 I read that research for the R8 since 1989 has cost 25M DM (12.5 M €) already. This is a very interesting information, if one compares it to 30M € investment for the S2 on p.145. If those numbers are right, they could end the whole debate about the R-system. If just the research for one SLR-camera costed more than a third of the investment of a complete new system, they were mad in the early nineties not to stop the R-system at once. But as I have no chance to verify those numbers for costs I don't know whether these numbers are typos, unbased estimates or just wrong. I cannot trust this book as long as facts are concerned. The more I read my copy of the new Leica Compendium the more mistakes and conflicting data I come across. Consequently, one wonders about the varsity of any of the data printed in this book. This is very disappointing considering the high price for this book and the years we all waited for it to be published. All these problems could have been avoided with a thorough professional editing before publishing. However, I would feel cheated if I had to again purchase a new edition of this book in order to receive an accurate reference. I am hoping Mr. Puts will offer original buyers of his Compendium a comprehensive book of errata/corrections with index. If indeed those of us who purchased the first Limited Edition must buy a second corrected edition of the Leica Compendium for the sake of accuracy, I would hope that we would get a substantial discount from the list price of this second edited copy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted June 16, 2011 Share #14 Posted June 16, 2011 I shouldn't be too optimistic about a new edition free of so many faults far beyond misprints. The amount of work to do all the research necessary to avoid them would be the same as for the present edition. So I don't expect that the author will give any rebates on a second edition for those who purchased the first one - the costs for the author or the editor would be immense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 16, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 16, 2011 Rebates and discounts? Yeah, I wouldn't count on that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hooper Posted June 17, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 17, 2011 Rebates and discounts? Yeah, I wouldn't count on that... It would be the right thing to do. One can only hope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 17, 2011 Share #17 Posted June 17, 2011 You're not serious...? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 17, 2011 Share #18 Posted June 17, 2011 It would be the right thing to do. One can only hope. The only time I've *ever* seen this is with O'Reilly computer books, where you can send them the title page of a book and get an "upgrade" price. The difference here is that Puts' book is done in very low volume (1,000 copies I believe) mostly by himself and his publisher and not a huge book/publishing entity. The economics and logistics just don't make sense. Besides, books don't come with warranties or anything like that. Buy at your own risk, etc. You could always sell your edition and then buy the next. I can appreciate where you're coming from, but in this case it just wouldn't work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted June 17, 2011 Share #19 Posted June 17, 2011 ...Besides, books don't come with warranties or anything like that. .... Well, I remember when I worked in a bookshop some 30 years ago, there were sometimes people coming in and showing severe misprints in a book, and the seller took it back and asked if he should try to order a new one without the faults or if he should pay the money back. Though this was long ago and I don't think that even then someone paid back the price when the reader took the content of a book for desinformation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 17, 2011 Share #20 Posted June 17, 2011 I don't think Puts will offer "rebates" or "special discount" or similar to the potential buyers of the 2nd ed. : typos abound, indeed, but globally the huge content is enjoyable; it has been a semi-hand-made limited edition and subscribers had to expect some issues for the lack of a professional workflow before print : btw the price is absolutely right for such an edition (and, imho, even low considering the effort behind) ; a book of that size from a standard source whould have had surely a price double or so... and if I think of the amount of typos/editing errors of my Laney 2nd Italian Edition, I'd say that not always a professional workflow is a guarantee of final quality... Personally I had just this year an experience of "warranty" on a book... but it was a gross typographical packaging mistake (a batch of pages replicated... say pag 1 to 50 followed by 1 to 50 and then by101 to end... ), and of course it was exchanged for a good one (after some time... they discovered that all the 4 copies in the bookshop were like mine...... no strange, indeed) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.