scott kirkpatrick Posted May 29, 2007 Share #21 Posted May 29, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, Erwin isn't a current subscriber and it is unlikely that he has actually read the article in question. That's interesting. He also makes a comment about the way colors are plotted in Imatest which I believe has been changed in the past year or so. Maybe he's not a current subscriber there, either. scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Hi scott kirkpatrick, Take a look here Puts Contra Reid?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
egibaud Posted May 29, 2007 Share #22 Posted May 29, 2007 I'm not surprised that some idiot needs to read more than one book just to prove a circle is round. LOL Please clarify your thoughts, explain who the idiots are. Because your sentence is so short that my little brain is having a hard time grasping what you mean... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Mondello Posted May 29, 2007 Share #23 Posted May 29, 2007 According to Puts: "When you view and interpret an image file on a computer screen, you see the sum of the effects of the scene itself, the lens projection on the detector, the characteristics of the detector, the characteristics of the post processing program, the characteristics of the computer screen itself and last but not least the interpretative value system of the viewer." Yup, that's right, and it's why I prefer Sean Reid's reviews to Erwin Puts', because I live and work IN THE REAL WORLD not in a lab! Here's another metaphor, if I am interested in a car, I might find a chart of technical specs interesting, but in the end unreliable in describing the experience of driving. I'll read a review of a car that includes *driving impressions* as likely MORE important than tech specs alone. And that includes things like road conditions, driver expertise and personality, weather and whole slew of essentially non-quantifiable variables into the equation. BTW didn't we just hash this out ad naseum in another thread? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 29, 2007 Share #24 Posted May 29, 2007 Yea we did , it's Putzy Watzy day here today. Need a nap. :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoMammabot Posted May 29, 2007 Share #25 Posted May 29, 2007 I cant give an objective review of Puts reviews because they made me sleepy. I'll try again after a strong cofffee. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photogdave Posted May 30, 2007 Share #26 Posted May 30, 2007 I read Erwin' article when it was published. It didn't occur to me at all that he was referring to Sean Reids's reviews. To me it sounded like he was referring to the general trend of people pixel-peeping and looking at images magnified beyond all realistic viewing sizes to critically judge the sharpness of their lenses. If anything, it sounded like he was agreeing with the importance of Sean's "real world" photography tests. Cut Erwin some slack! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted May 30, 2007 Share #27 Posted May 30, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I kinda got lost when he started talking about Donald Duck. Some people as they say are educated well beyond their intellect. What can I say, I only speak english. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted May 30, 2007 Share #28 Posted May 30, 2007 I read both Sean's reviews and Erwin's, and I find something worthwhile in both. However, re: The main problem with this approach is the impossibility to separate the whole from the individual parts and facts from subjective interpretation. My pictures contain both the parts and the whole, unseparated, and while they unfortunately probably contain facts, those facts are most assuredly not separated from subjective interpretation - both mine and the viewer's. So I don't understand how this can be "the main problem". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac Posted May 30, 2007 Share #29 Posted May 30, 2007 Hello Eric! THIS IS NON SENSE !!!!!!!!!!! Oh NO! This was quite sensefull! I live in Spain and I am subscribed to Sean's reviews. I live in Austria, and I was NOT able to subscribe, because me telephone number was not accepted! I wrote to Sean (Feb, 21 2007), but no answer at all. So, it is very interesting, to read here about Seans reviews, but I would prefer to read the originals too. But, nevertheless, I have already done my lens decisions... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venkman Posted May 30, 2007 Share #30 Posted May 30, 2007 Interesting thread - evolves from a suggested feud between two websites to general customer service of one of those websites. As for subjective reviews: I prefer them over the technical/objective ones, since I am a mediocre photographer and I love to see what a lense can do in real life shots, instead of theoretical data that I can not put in perspective, either because I have no clue what the author is elaborating about or I simply can't relate to the situation described. Technophiles will probably prefer another approach, that's fine with me - and again there's those who will be satisfied by simply being pointed in the direction of a lense to buy&try it (right, Guy?) Dirk (subscribed from Germany without problems) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted May 30, 2007 Share #31 Posted May 30, 2007 I read Erwin' article when it was published. It didn't occur to me at all that he was referring to Sean Reids's reviews. To me it sounded like he was referring to the general trend of people pixel-peeping and looking at images magnified beyond all realistic viewing sizes to critically judge the sharpness of their lenses.If anything, it sounded like he was agreeing with the importance of Sean's "real world" photography tests. Cut Erwin some slack! Mike Johnston also couldn't imagine that Erwin was referring to Sean, either, and said so in the comments following his long blog post. But I think Mike had trouble reading past the Donald Duck stuff, just as others did. That's where Erwin said, essentially, "there's this recent 75 mm lens review which is just such a Duck's quacking, and I'll show you how all those observations follow from what I already know about the two lenses." He went on to argue that the Leica designers had done a better job than the Cosina designers, without really disputing Sean's point that for all photographic needs when using the M8, the two lenses are almost equivalent, differing only under certain kinds of lighting. I found the way in which the information was offered rather distasteful, even though his arguments were interesting. scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 30, 2007 Share #32 Posted May 30, 2007 Burn The Witch, Burn The Witch Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 30, 2007 Share #33 Posted May 30, 2007 Burn The Witch, Burn The Witch Indeed. I thought I'd left the playground behind when I left school 20 years ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted May 30, 2007 Share #34 Posted May 30, 2007 I enjoy reading both experts' reviews and commentaries. In the end, the only thing which matters, though, is how individual photos look to my eye on screen and print! And it is Sean's reviews which help me getting an idea of which of the many RF lenses (many of which being very good or even excellent from a theoretical standpoint) might be to my taste. Pros might need an another attitude when selecting lenses, since they have to sell their products eventually. But it works for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted May 30, 2007 Share #35 Posted May 30, 2007 I take a more ecumenical view of the Irwin-Sean controversy: I believe that both have something positive to offer and I read them both, weigh their comments carefully, ponder their conclusions, consider the ramifications... and then pray before deciding... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 30, 2007 Share #36 Posted May 30, 2007 There is no doubt whatsoever, to my mind, that Sean's are by far the most useful, thorough and intelligent reviews on or offline. At the same time, (whilst not yet having read this particular Puts article), I feel uncomfortable at the way that Puts has been vilified recently on this forum - particularly in another thread, which discussed his methodogy in testing the use of IR filters in a way that seemed to me to misrepresent his views as a means of attacking him personally. I tend not to have any interest whatsoever for the color-chart and resolution-graph testing that Puts employs - but i can see that there's a place for it for those that may need an 'objective' measure of a lens' performance. Of course, discussions as to how objective and scientific his methodology actually is are beyond my technical capability. PS: and i see that Albert was quicker on the keyboard making the point! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted May 30, 2007 Share #37 Posted May 30, 2007 I'm a big fan of Sean's work and reviews. I like his approach and his technique - controlled, thorough and practical. Nevertheless, here's .02 for Put:his review of some of the lenses (Tri-E, 28 2.8 for examples) have helped me have some assurance as to their strengths and weaknesses. Its not the easiest reading, nor the most fun, but sometimes there are nuggets in his work that make it worthwhile. I'm very sorry to see him working in the digital world, which is not his strength, to say the least. As to his work on explaining lens and optics, both manufacturing and design matters, there he has been vey helpful for many a year. These latter "excursions" are not the best to judge him by. Lets be glad we have both, and use each to their best advantage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 30, 2007 Share #38 Posted May 30, 2007 Interesting thread - evolves from a suggested feud between two websites to general customer service of one of those websites. As for subjective reviews: I prefer them over the technical/objective ones, since I am a mediocre photographer and I love to see what a lense can do in real life shots, instead of theoretical data that I can not put in perspective, either because I have no clue what the author is elaborating about or I simply can't relate to the situation described. Technophiles will probably prefer another approach, that's fine with me - and again there's those who will be satisfied by simply being pointed in the direction of a lense to buy&try it (right, Guy?) Dirk (subscribed from Germany without problems) I normally just like to point folks in a direction that i think a lens has the stuff that is worth there money. It works , i buy then try them , show you guys images from it and what i like about it. i don't do this vs that anymore but if i recommend a lens most folks are very happy they bought one. I have seen a lot of lenses in my day and most folks trust my opinion, honestly i won't steer anyone in the wrong direction. Hopefully that helps folks but comparing one vs the other does have great value and i have done it many times so i will always be in the camp of a reviewer that shows what a lens is made of, need to see what it can do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted May 30, 2007 Share #39 Posted May 30, 2007 .......... hey it's eleven a side ....one side has only seven Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted May 30, 2007 Share #40 Posted May 30, 2007 maybe Erwin should take his own advice remember his M8/5D comparisons Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.