Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stevme

Puts Contra Reid?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Yea we did , it's Putzy Watzy day here today. Need a nap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burn The Witch, Burn The Witch

 

Indeed. I thought I'd left the playground behind when I left school 20 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

.......... hey it's eleven a side ....one side has only seven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe Erwin should take his own advice

remember his M8/5D comparisons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...