Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stevme

Puts Contra Reid?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

T

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.

 

I am sorry that you thought that I was making a personal attack, as I don't know the man and do respect and enjoy his articles on lenses. In this case, I know what he was trying to do, and pointed out that he was probably introducing uncontrolled differences so that the results should not be taken seriously.

 

Nothing personal. Just trying to help the people, like you, who don't want the technical details, but do read the conclusion -- "filters introduce noise" -- which is probably not justified yet.

 

scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Eric!

 

 

Oh NO! This was quite sensefull!

 

 

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...

 

1) PayPal handles the financial transactions. I have no control over their policies. When someone runs into a Paypal problem, I try to help and to suggest alternatives. Thousands of people have subscribed to RR from countries all over the world, so its clearly possible. I'm not privy to the specific circumstances with a given person's credit card, country. etc. that might cause problems.

 

2) I try to answer every e-mail I receive. If one doesn't get a reply within a few days, it means I probably never saw the e-mail. Please also understand that I get a large volume of e-mail and can't respond to everyone instantly.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

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)

 

There is no feud between the two web sites. I have never published any negative comment about Erwin Puts (direct or indirect) in any of my articles. In fact, in the LL articles, I sometimes linked him as a resource for technical information. My articles are never about other reviewers, they're about equipment and photography always. That proof is in the pudding - feel free to review every article on the site to confirm that.

 

Thanks for the general comments on the reviews.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

It's really a matter of accurate information that is lacking and that is the part i don't like at all , good, bad or indifferent is not the problem i have . It is being accurate without question on results which in many cases with his reviews he is not. That is were i have my issues and being in digital as long as i have his results are not logical or accurate and if he is doing a technical review the accuracy must be absolutely correct. it's one thing to say i really like this lens and how it draws than it is up to the viewer to make further investigation but to do a review by the numbers when the test procedures are wrong than it is misleading and not accurate and that is where the issues comes in. He has been wrong and proven before and clearly once again he does the same thing. One reason i get the shakes when i read his reviews is he does not have a workflow that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. I thought I'd left the playground behind when I left school 20 years ago.

 

 

We never leave the playground so long as there are boats, motorcycles and sports cars.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Thanks. Actually, it seems to work for a lot of pros as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

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!

 

Hi Mani,

 

Erwin set himself up by using his pulpit to insult another reviewer. He then set himself up again by testing the effectiveness of an IR filter on a subject that doesn't reflect much IR. For every action there will be an opposite and equal reaction. And so it goes...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

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.

 

Fair enough. Let's hope that he also concentrates his efforts on his own reviews and not on editorializing about other reviewers.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......... hey it's eleven a side ....one side has only seven

 

Imants,

 

You're up next and if you hit another foul the team will be furious. <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry that you thought that I was making a personal attack, as I don't know the man and do respect and enjoy his articles on lenses.

 

Hi Scott - i actually wasn't thinking about your contributions at all - all of which were thoughtful, objective and informative (and as always make for interesting reading).

 

As is obvious from previous discussions on the forum, I have problems with some members who (i feel) jump into a thread with a rant that's often not based on any strict relation to the facts: that is not the case whatsoever with your posts.

In the case of that thread, i personally felt that Puts' thesis was being misrepresented by some contributors.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. Let's hope that he also concentrates his efforts on his own reviews and not on editorializing about other reviewers.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

btw - thanks again for your supremely excellent reviews: right now i'm agonizing between adding a CV15, CV21 or waiting to find the right used example of a 21 2,8 - and my girlfriend blames you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe Erwin should take his own advice

remember his M8/5D comparisons

 

Those who don't remember them may never see them because they were quietly withdrawn from the site. You may recall that they centered on an out of focus bodice.

 

Folks, I didn't start either of the Puts threads and my articles do not review other reviewers. But, if my work is attacked, of course I'll respond. Otherwise, the unchallenged information starts to be regarded, by some, as fact.

 

Also...we have a crackin' team this year and if Imants can just get the ball about 15 degrees more to the left, we might have a great season. He always hits it with a vengeance but we just never know what direction it will go in.

 

ie: None of this need be taken too seriously. Erwin ticked off myself and a few other people with his insulting comments and so there's some backlash - not the end of the world.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean said:

"My articles are never about other reviewers, they're about equipment and photography always."

I think this may be the very good way to act. And I like Sein work. Go on! Thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean said:

"My articles are never about other reviewers, they're about equipment and photography always."

I think this may be the very good way to act. And I like Sein work. Go on! Thanks!!

 

Thank you.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couldn't agree more.

 

btw - thanks again for your supremely excellent reviews: right now i'm agonizing between adding a CV15, CV21 or waiting to find the right used example of a 21 2,8 - and my girlfriend blames you!

 

Well, just tell her that it could have been even more expensive lenses.

 

Thanks, Cheers

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean,

you're welcome!

BTW... :-) Maybe you can find time and space to talk about earlier lenses? Say something like a vintage space in your Reviews?

I, for one, am thinking to 21 Super Angulon f:3.4 or a Summicron 50. Just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erwin...then set himself up again by testing the effectiveness of an IR filter on a subject that doesn't reflect much IR. Sean

 

Erwin says (and shows) clearly in the first article that IR filters are valuable for subjects that emit IR radiation (like his model's sweater). But they offer no improvement for subjects that don't, and may reduce contrast and increase reflections. His second article deals only with the latter point and simply reconfirms it.

 

I don't see the controversy here. Seems like clear and useful information to me.

 

I find both authors valuable and appreciate all the information I can get.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, just tell her that it could have been even more expensive lenses.

 

haha - yeah well i guess once i bought the noctilux, the only way to go was down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erwin says (and shows) clearly in the first article that IR filters are valuable for subjects that emit IR radiation (like his model's sweater). But they offer no improvement for subjects that don't, and may reduce contrast and increase reflections. His second article deals only with the latter point and simply reconfirms it.

 

I don't see the controversy here. Seems like clear and useful information to me.

 

I find both authors valuable and appreciate all the information I can get.

 

John

 

Hi John,

 

If you reread his "upshot" conclusion, you may see why some have found his overall conclusions to be misleading.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy