Puts on the Zeiss ikon

[Mazurka]

First, what the heck is CRF? Chronic renal failure? Constitutional Rights Foundation? Cloud Radiation Feedback? The way he uses it, sure ain't Contax Rangefinder. If he means "Compact Rangefinder", what would he call cameras like the Olympus RC and Petri 35?

The usual Putzisms from http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html :

"It shares with that classical design the problem that the rangefinder patch does disappear quickly when you do not position your eye squarely at the optical axis of the exit pupil. Here the new M7/MP finder has a distinctive advantage." Brightness, clarity, long eye-relief, absence of flare and larger eyepiece obviously aren't advantages -- or at least not distinctive enough. :(

"Results count and the ZI shutter unit is accurate and reliable, albeit not as durable as the Leica shutter." Exactly how long has the ZI been in production? Is his sample already failing? :confused:

"The ZI transport mechanism does not give you any feedback on its state of operation. After making a picture and operating the lever-wind, you have the impression that nothing has happened. The whole movement is a bit too light and the film rewind knob on the other hand is a bit too rough. Handling the camera from a tactile point of view gives an impression of lightness verging on the brink of cheapness."

And here comes the classic Putz punchline: "The CRF is famous for its propensity to synchronise the compositional state of the scene and the mental state of the photographer. The mechanical movements of the camera should not distract from this synchronisation. The 'emptiness' of the transport movement does interfere in the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF." :rolleyes:

"The camera is not perfect in its present incarnation. The camera needs more substance and profile in order to become a viable contender in the present RF scene. If the ZI can evolve beyond being seen as an upgraded version of the Bessa and a cheaper cousin of the Leica M, than we have a interesting new player on the stage of the CRF theatre." The absence of the red dot obviously accounts for most of the imperfection and lack of substance. ;)

"Even the most stubborn adherent of the belief that top-quality cameras and lenses can only originate from a certain Wetzlar manufacturer should by now accept the fact that engineering excellence and optical performance is not region dependent, but the result of manufacturing technology and quality control." True, but he doesn't seem to think the Zeiss Ikon possesses these qualities.

[andrewch]

CRF=Classic RangeFinders?

Andrew

[sunsworth]

Seems reasonable to me. I'm assuming that the quote "The 'emptiness' of the transport movement does interfere in the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF" means that if you're not sure that the camera's wound on then you don't know if you can take a photograph.

I'm sure the Zeiss is a capable camera, but you get what you pay for.

Steve

[Mazurka]

CRF=Classic RangeFinders?

Surely he doesn't consider the ZI to be classic.

"Costly Rangefinder" is more probable. :D

[Honu-Hugger]

Putz has always been such a...oh, never mind :).

[Mazurka]

Seems reasonable to me. I'm assuming that the quote "The 'emptiness' of the transport movement does interfere in the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF" means that if you're not sure that the camera's wound on then you don't know if you can take a photograph.

I'm sure the Zeiss is a capable camera, but you get what you pay for.

Steve

I guess you really can't be sure of anything until you have the film processed - the shutter speed/exposure could be off, the composition not spot on, missed moment, subject/camera movement, unintended flare/ghosting, misfocus, operator error, lab error... Oddly enough, photogs seem to have overcome these uncertainties.

It's a good thing that you get your money's worth with the ZI. Can't say the same thing about my M6TTL. :(

[James Burton]

CRF=Classic RangeFinders?


Coupled Range Finder.

Thanks,
James

[Little Prince]

'costly rangefiner' :D :angel:

that is cracking me up.

Maybe 'coupled rangefinder', as in being distinct from scale focus cameras and direct view cameras. Usually that's what CRF stands for, though I don't know if it fits here.

[bmattock]

CRF used in this context often means "Coupled Range Finder." As opposed to the uncoupled sort, in which one determines the range by way of a rangefinder instrument, either built into the camera, or more commonly, a clip-on accessory for a camera which is scale-focus only. Then one transfers the distance setting from the ranging device to the lens barrel, achieving focus. CRF is usually considered a much more natural way to use a rangefinder camera, and considerably faster.

And I believe the man's name is spelled "Puts." In the USA, there is a slang word which comes to us from Yiddish, putz, which means penis and is an insult and derogatory. I would presume that your mispelling is unintentional.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Little Prince]

The fingers were fast, but the mind wanted to ramble. :D
James said it.

[Mazurka]

Coupled Range Finder.

"The screws [on the lens mount] of the ZI are the traditional ones and this is done intentionally to visually link to the legacy of the great CRF tradition."

I don't see such screws on Super Ikontas but they are ubiquitous on Japanese SLRs. Thankfully he didn't squeez in another couple of "traditions" for that paragraph. :p

[ZeissFan]

So the film transport is actually too smooth. So if it's smoother than a Leica (which he infers), then it's not doing its job. But if it's rougher than a Leica then it's inadequate.

Unfortunately, this is typical Leica zealotry -- in which Zeiss can never win. Figures.

And that is an interesting conclusion regarding the durability of the shutter. How does he know that this shutter is any more or less durable than a cloth shutter.

Which will break first? Which will lose its rubber coating? Which will get a finger pushed through it? Which will have a hole burnt through it? Which will simply stop working because of other issues? That's a big leap of faith he makes without substantiating it with statistics.

[Honu-Hugger]

I note that all of the spelling has been corrected :D.

[back alley]

just the title...;)

[Frank Granovski]

What do you expect for a Leica shill? :rolleyes:

:cool:

[RJBender]

"Some observers note that film may be dead by 2007!"

source: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html

http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/images/smilies/nervous.gif http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/blueupset.gif http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/cry.gif http://www.ubbcentral.com/ubb/eek.gif


R.J.

[bmattock]

What do you expect for a Leica shill? :rolleyes:

:cool:

I really don't understand the intense dislike so many feel for this man. I don't own any Leica's - well, a Hektor 135mm LTM lens - and I don't follow his website or his writings, but I don't see what's so much to dislike. He has his opinions. Some I agree with, others not. But I don't feel the outrage and anger that his ever utterance seems to bring out in people. He's like Rush Limbaugh - it doesn't matter WHAT he says, there are a legion of Puts-haters waiting in the wings to be offended.

What up with that?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[Honu-Hugger]

Like Rush he sets himself up for it by being so damned opinionated and self-righteous -- he's a big boy, he can take it :).

[back alley]

Not Again!

[Frank Granovski]

Bill, I never said I didn't like the man but it's clear he's a Leica shill. So what? It doesn't matter anyway because Leica's been dying a slow death for quite some time. (Long live the Bessas and the Ikon!) :cool:

[bmattock]

Not Again!

No, Joe, not from me. Anyone can say anything they like. Whatever. I have no opinions, opinions are bad.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[back alley]

No, Joe, not from me. Anyone can say anything they like. Whatever. I have no opinions, opinions are bad.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks


it was not directed at you bill!

if you notice, i changed the spelling of the name in the title.

i just don't want to rehash an old argument.

joe

[back alley]

Bill, I never said I didn't like the man but it's clear he's a Leica shill. So what? It doesn't matter anyway because Leica's been dying a slow death for quite some time. (Long live the Bessas and the Ikon!) :cool:


frank,

i have discovered that i can ban people for a day or 2 or a week or so.

if you keep leica bashing i'm gonna have to ground you for at least a day.

we like all rangefinders here, plain & simple.

joe

[RJBender]

"If the ZI can evolve beyond being seen as an upgraded version of the Bessa and a cheaper cousin of the Leica M, than we have a interesting new player on the stage of the CRF theatre."


Evolve... cheaper cousin....theatre.

It's entertainment. http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/jester.gif

R.J.

[yossarian]

Bill, you know it's been nearly a month since the last Puts-bashing, so I guess it's a regularly scheduled event now.

"It's not braggin' if you're cocky and you back it up".

[julianphotoart]

It seems to me that if Mr. Puts used the same degree of criticism to analyze the actual usefulness of the M7, he'd say IT was a pretty terrible camera too. I could easily write a review that listed a lot of things that are troublesome about actually USING my M7.

[back alley]

folks, read the whole review and not just bits taken out of it.

it's very easy to pull something apart if you pick and choose the words from an article.

joe

[Honu-Hugger]

I enjoy all opinions. The factual ones are informative and the others are entertaining...

[RJBender]

I enjoy all opinions. The factual ones are informative and the others are entertaining...

http://www.corvetteforum.com/zeroimg/smilies/iagree.gif


R.J.

[Frank Granovski]

Okay, no more Leica bashing from me, Joe. I'll lay it to rest. :)

(Except about my Leica CL because it deserves it.) :p

[back alley]

many people will thank you frank, as do i.

joe

[bmattock]

Bill, you know it's been nearly a month since the last Puts-bashing, so I guess it's a regularly scheduled event now.

Yeah. I guess so. I don't care if people like or don't like the man - I don't know him, and I can hardly defend his opinions, since 90% of what he writes about I won't ever own or be able to afford anyway. I just dislike the whole "I don't like this guy so I'm going to trash his name" thing. His name is Puts. Like him, hate him, I could not care less. But leave the man's name alone.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[claidemore]

I really hate it when my stream of consciousness gets interfered with.

[Honu-Hugger]

After some consideration I'm staying with Putz :D.

[egpj]

Putz has always been such a...oh, never mind :).

"putz" :p

[egpj]

hhmmm, should have read to the end of the thread.

[Honu-Hugger]

Bill,
I'm not taking this thing too seriously -- it's all in fun. I've read the man's reviews for years and I do not have a great deal of respect for him -- that's my opinion. The rest of this is silly fun as far as I'm concerned.

[claidemore]

Actually I don't have a point, just thought the stream of consciousness phrase was kinda funny.

As for Erwins Puts article, I found the factual parts informative, and the opinion parts interesting, and sometimes amusing, though I doubt they were intended as such. I also enjoyed his writing style, it's archaic, and a little high handed, but makes good reading.

I wrote for a small newspaper for several years, during which time I learned a couple things.

People will read anything you write.

Not everyone will like what you write.

I've just learned another thing too. If you take too long to compose a message in a forum... the topic changes. lol

[Honu-Hugger]

Sorry Bill, I never meant any offense to you personally. Quite frankly as I was reading your post my mind was running faster than my eyes and I couldn't for the life of me imagine what connotation one would make of Mattocks.

As for Puts; in the business he is in and particularly the style in which he writes he'd better have a pretty thick skin because publicly he sets himself up for harsh criticism. I've seen the issue from both sides; I didn't like him even when I owned Leicas -- I considered him an embarrassment to the marque. And to other Leica owners I'm sure he's their hero -- he has a divisive style. Putz just happens to work for me because I'd think of him as a dick-head even if his name were Smith; Puts just makes it easier.

[Mazurka]

Sorry Bill, I never meant any offense to you personally. Quite frankly as I was reading your post my mind was running faster than my eyes and I couldn't for the life of me imagine what connotation one would make of Mattocks.

Bill, don't take it personally when you see Erwin's famous nickname which I never claim to invent. If anything, your name only reminds me of Matlock the TV attorney.

I agree with Honu-Hugger. I don't hate Erwin the man, but rather his ridiculous, illogical ramblings that are often misleading. Anything Leica does is splendid. But if a strong competitor does the same thing, it's just the opposite, especially when they do it before Leica did - look at what he had to say about the AE function on the Konica Hexar RF and M7. There have been many other instances and I don't have to repeat what Mike said about Erwin's latest on the ZI.

I used to consider him to be a good authority on Leica, subscribed to his newsletter, even bought his book. But his endless flowery prose for Leica and the multiple standards that he keeps on other brands are just too much to bear. My post was not to "trash" him but rather to show his hilarious jabs on the ZI. Surely it's worth a laugh if nothing else. :D

[Frank Granovski]

What I find biased is that the Ikon picture in the beginning of the article is placed below the M7, indicating that it's a lesser camera, even though Puts' review is a review of the Zeiss Ikon. Call it symbolism or whatever but it does foreshadow a slant from the start. Thank you very much and have a great evening. ;)

[Mazurka]

Honu, I like Scott Fitzgerald too. IMO The Great Gatsby is not just Time Magazine's Top 100 (http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html), it's one of the top 5 for me. :)

[jaap]

Clearly visible in the pictures of the viewfinders is that, although the leica picture is displayed brighter, the Zeiss ikon finder is more bright. So the ZI finder must be signifcant brighter compared to the finder of a M7.

[Socke]

And perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I take it seriously when someone uses a person's name to belittle them. If my best friend walked up to me and said "Hey, Bill Buttocks!" to my face, I'd break his nose and he'd take his teeth home in his pocket and there would not even be a discussion about it first. I don't think it is 'all in fun' to make fun of a man's name. Sorry.

But I guess I have to realize that some people just don't see it that way.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks


Bill I'm with you so far, but please consider that some 5.8 billion people don't know words from yiddish origin and how they are used in the US.

For me Putz is part of "Hausputz" as in "cleaning your house", Putz may be a womans hat or hairdress in german as used up to the 1950s or 60s. If you dress in your best cloth, shine your shoes and get your fingernails clean to go to church on sunday, you are "herausgeputzt".

Putz is plaster, too.

So it took me some time on photo.net to understand why this is insulting and not just a misspelling.

And to Erwin Puts himself, as long as he doesn't write about motorcycles ....

[jaap]

And to Erwin Puts himself, as long as he doesn't write about motorcycles ....
__________________







some times erwin cleaning writes about cars and motorcycles and makes some strange comparisons with camera's

[Bertram2]

I don't hate Erwin the man, but rather his ridiculous, illogical ramblings that are often misleading. Anything Leica does is splendid. :D

Yes, but that's what he always did and what he always will do and we all know why he does so. I can't take all this serious anymore since quite a long time.

I refuse to read his stuff because If I deal with his stuff seriously it proves this MATTERS for me and this would prove I am intellectually on par with him and most of all, with his fans too.

So I decided to keep him just as a kinda entertainer for a certain part of the Leica community, with a lot of unvoluntary humor in his essay-like tests which are not relevant in any way for me. And that's IT.

I know that is an illusionary imagination but best Putz would be declared as a non-issue here in this forum .Whenever and wherever he is mentioned he polarizes the community in a way which would be reason enuff to ban HIM !

bertram

[Socke]

After reading his report I think it isn't to bad.

We've heard reports about the ZI not feeling right to long time Leica owners and IMHO Erwin tried to show where this feeling comes from.

I didn't know the rangefinder patch moves with paralax correction in a Leica, I can't remember this being the case in the IIIf I once had.

As for the longevity, he says himself we have to postpone this for some five years. I think the shutter well be as good as that in my Yashica FX-D, still alive and kicking after more than 20 years.

[Frank Granovski]

The ZI feels substantially lighter than the M7, but also less solidly built. This initial impression might be wrong, but is still is there.Maybe the Z1 should have been compared with a titanium M7? Works for me.The screws of the ZI are the traditional ones and this is done intentionally to visually link to the legacy of the great CRF tradition.Yes, the screws do look traditional.The camera needs more substance and profile in order to become a viable contender in the present RF scene. If the ZI can evolve beyond being seen as an upgraded version of the Bessa and a cheaper cousin of the Leica M, than we have a interesting new player on the stage of the CRF theatre.What's wrong with my Bessa R3A? :confused:

[bobofish]

Incidentally, Yiddish is essentially Mittelhochdeutsch (middle high german) with words basteled in from Hebrew, and turned into a dialect. Jews had traditionally lived in the urban centers of middle Europe, but were kicked out in the 13th and 14th centuries. Living in their isolated communities, their language of course developed a life of its own, and continued as a lingua franca for jews even when they were allowed back into cities. Yiddish was written in hebrew script for no other reason than that there wasn't hardly anybody to read their writing anyway. Even nobles in those days were illiterate, and only the priesthood would have been able to read, a group of people who the jews probablly had no interest in informing. The average jew was literate centuries before the average European, partially because of Talmudic study, and partially because they had to be able to keep records.

Also, a lot of yiddish words made their way into both German and Polish, some of those words have been purged, along with the people that brought them. An example of a word that's still in the German language is schleppen. The swearword Schmuck itself comes from the word schmecken. A great deal of both German and Polish food and culture is actually Jewish, unknown to Germans and Poles.

Growing up, I actually thought Putz meant the foreskin of the penis. I never actually spoke yiddish, but I learned to understand it, as my grandparents used it as a secret language. The implication I thought was that since the foreskin is the one thing Jewish men don't have, it was a double insult: secondly to equate you with a gentile, and firstly to imply that you are a disgarded piece of useless flesh from the penis. But of course I may have misunderstood, or since it's a slang word, it may have many meanings. None of those is really that appropriate to call Mr. Puts, however much of a putz or shill he may be.

Incidentally, since I'm on the history lesson anyway, I might as well point out that not all jews understand Yiddish; besides the obvious examples of jews who never learned it, there are the Sephardim: the jews who came from Spain, and were ejected in 1492, the same year as the Moors. Those jews had spoken the same Spanish as all Spaniards, with the exception that jews included jewish slang. It's an interesting history lesson for linguists to look at Sephardic and Yiddish, because both dialects are very similar, except their added slang words, to medieval Spanish and German, and are also very similar to dialects still found in some mountain towns in Spain and Switzerland.

An example anecdote about the similarity of the dialects of Yiddish and Swiss German is when my grandmother called the wife of one of my professors once...a family friend. My grandmother spoke little to no English, and the woman spoke no Russian. My grandmother knew however from her days in a concentration camp that Bavarian dialect, and even more so Swiss was very similar to Yiddish; since my professor's wife had gotten her doctorate in linguistics in Switzerland, they were able to have an interesting conversation, and one that the professor's wife told me was very surreal, since they were both essentially speaking centuries old dialects, from which modern German derived.

[Frank Granovski]

Yiddish is my first language. :)

[bobofish]

Vunderlekch.

[Frank Granovski]

Not taking it ironically...'er, thanks. :)

[Huck Finn]

After reading his report I think it isn't to bad.

We've heard reports about the ZI not feeling right to long time Leica owners and IMHO Erwin tried to show where this feeling comes from.

I didn't know the rangefinder patch moves with paralax correction in a Leica, I can't remember this being the case in the IIIf I once had.

As for the longevity, he says himself we have to postpone this for some five years. I think the shutter well be as good as that in my Yashica FX-D, still alive and kicking after more than 20 years.

Socke, I'm a Puts fan & I agree that he had some interesting observations. Overall, however, I found his review VERY disappointing because it didn't go into much depth at all. I learned very little that I couldn't have read from other user reports posted here & elsewhere on the net.

If you look at Erwin's review of the M7, it is extraordinarily detailed. There are pictures of the internal construction of the camera. He has one section in this review called "Electromagnetics and a Ballbearing!" Since Zeiss had a new electromagnetic control system designed specifically for this shutter mechanism & because of the comments by Erwin & others about the film advance mechanism, I would have loved seeing something like this "Electromagnetics . . ." section included in the ZI report. There has been much speculative discussion about the build quality of the ZI. Wouldn't it have been great to have him analyze this by actually looking inside the camera & telling us what it is made of & how, complete with pictures.

I was really looking forward to Erwin's review of this camera because I thought that we would get from him what we can't get from anyone else. I wouldn't have cared if he was pro or con, whether he liked the camera or didn't. I'm an information freak & I just wanted facts that I can't get anywhere else. Instead I got one more superficial user report, which is not a bad thing in & of itself - just not what I expected from him. This was a real let down, a complete fizzle.

My only hope now is that Popular Photography might do a review which reveals the internal details of the camera, including pictures. They used to do this kind of report, but they don't do much of it any more either, so my hopes aren't very high.

Huck

[Socke]

Huck, you have a point there. Erwins reviews used to be better. I too don't care if he is a good photographer or not when I read his lens reviews as he tries to measure what others define as "glow" :-)

[plexi]

First, what the heck is CRF?


Three pages and noone still gets it right! ;)

CRF= Cosina RangeFinder

[ch1]

After reading through these posts it reminds me of the old automobile analogy (at least here in the US):

Either your a Ford man, or a Chevy man - but never both!

Substitue Leica for Ford and Zeiss for Chevy and I think you have the gist of this age-old argument! :D

[Way]

I just wish Puts would write simply. Too verbose for me.

Way

[doubs43]

After reading through these posts it reminds me of the old automobile analogy (at least here in the US):

Either your a Ford man, or a Chevy man - but never both!

Substitue Leica for Ford and Zeiss for Chevy and I think you have the gist of this age-old argument! :D

Good analogy! I own Leica and Ford. :D

Walker

[ch1]

Good analogy! I own Leica and Ford. :D

Walker

Heck, I'm strictly a Nikon and a Lexus kind of guy! :D

[back alley]

hhhmmm...

cnaon, zeiss, leica and mazda!

[Socke]

Contax, Kiev, Linhof, Olympus, Rollei, Yashica, Zorki and Mini!

[Way]

Canon, Leica, Hassy and Mini Cooper S!

Way

[CJP6008]

Am I missing something here? Having just read the review in question I did not find it particularly objectionable. Given some of the fulminating above I thought he had really panned the ZI.

Mr Puts has his way of doing things and his likes and dislikes. It seems he prefers a heavier camera and a different feel to the wind on/rewind. Otherwise his review seem to rate the camera highly. The conclusion seems a little harsh given that the substance of the criticism is the weight/ wind-on issue and these are really matters of taste and do not reflect actual performance and reliability. Time will tell as far as these are concerned.

Not being lucky enough to own an M series camera I came at the ZI unencumbered by prejudice or expectation as to how things should be. For me the weight thing is not an issue, I use OMs a lot too and so am used to small light cameras (do try the Zuiko 50mm f2 macro - that is one v special lens). The wind on seems fine too, feeling the rotation of the rewind crank lightly brush my left hand as the film winds on coupled wish the slight hiss as the film moves over the pressure plate is sufficient confirmation for me that all is well in that department.

All in all I am happy with the thing, esp the VF which is great for a specky like me.

Let us hope that it is a success for Zeiss, that we still have film to shoot for the foreseeable future and that Leica do not go the way of Konica Minolta, Bronica, Contax, Yashica et al. The photographic world would be an infinitely poorer place without them. I for one do not want to have a camera 'phone as my only option in future!

As for film, who knows - I pray it survives. I for one would have to seriously consider whether I continued professionally if it vanished. The quality of work produced by my digital colleagues (we are talking social photography) is very poor. Strange colour castes, awful skin tones, waxy skin and poor prints are the norm. The professional bodies in the UK have reported a dramatic rise in complaints to them from the public in this regard. Poor quality digital work has been the problem. Now it really says something when joe public are complaining about their wedding prints - I mean they have grown up on prints made by some spotty youth at the local mini lab who did not even look at what he was doing. The digital stuff that is the cause of the complaints must have been truly dreadful. Such a decline in standards is not only depressing but shames the profession.

C

[doubs43]

C, thank you for a reasoned and reasonable post on the new ZI camera. You make perfect sense without trashing Mr. Puts or the camera or Leica. I wish you well with yours and hope you make great images with it.

I think I've made this observation before but if Mr. Puts is German, as I'm pretty certain he is, I believe his name would be pronounced as if it were spelled "Poots" in English. I could be wrong, of course. I often am. ;)

Walker

[CJP6008]

Wise words Bill.

Walker, many thanks for your kind words. On the subject of Mr Puts' origins, I suspect that he may be Dutch. His web site has a .nl suffix and I believe that to be the one for the Netherlands. Perhaps I should ask! His English is, like that of many of his countrymen, excellent and quite puts me to shame. I do not speak a word of Dutch and struggle badly with French and Spanish. I am, like many of my countrymen, monolingual! On the odd occasion that I have been lucky enough to visit the Netherlands I have found folks from all walks of life fluent in English. Taxi drivers, barmen, the guy selling chips (that's French fries if you are in the US) - all great English.

As for the pronunciation - I cannot help, although there is a thing at the following address that allows one to hear the names of Dutch master painters being said by a Dutchman - http://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/dpainters_wo/twenty_dutch_masterpieces.htm#How%20to - It might give a clue and is a good site for anyone interested in Dutch art. Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch pronunciation of van Gogh (and indeed the pronunciation he himself would have used) is a million miles from that used in the US. Well you learn a new thing...

Chris

[RJBender]

Wise words Bill.

Walker, many thanks for your kind words. On the subject of Mr Puts' origins, I suspect that he may be Dutch. His web site has a .nl suffix and I believe that to be the one for the Netherlands. Perhaps I should ask! His English is, like that of many of his countrymen, excellent and quite puts me to shame. I do not speak a word of Dutch and struggle badly with French and Spanish. I am, like many of my countrymen, monolingual! On the odd occasion that I have been lucky enough to visit the Netherlands I have found folks from all walks of life fluent in English. Taxi drivers, barmen, the guy selling chips (that's French fries if you are in the US) - all great English.

As for the pronunciation - I cannot help, although there is a thing at the following address that allows one to hear the names of Dutch master painters being said by a Dutchman - http://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/dpainters_wo/twenty_dutch_masterpieces.htm#How%20to - It might give a clue and is a good site for anyone interested in Dutch art. Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch pronunciation of van Gogh (and indeed the pronunciation he himself would have used) is a million miles from that used in the US. Well you learn a new thing...

Chris

Chris, you are correct. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/smileys/i.gif NL is the country domain extension for the Netherlands.

Here's a Worldwide Registry List of ccTLDs (http://www.domainit.com/domains/country-domains.mhtml)


R.J.

[Kevin]

Hi, Bill, there is something here called "Schadenfreude" - glee over someone else's misfortune. This happens when the person deserves it. If the person does not deserve it, we call it "Mitgefühl" or compassion.

Puts probably reads this forum because most of his customary spelling mistakes are gone and we have spoken about that before. He must enjoy having other people talk about him and perhaps he knows that his word choice is effective in cultivating some kind of "fan" club.

His lofty language simply doesn't work in the context he is writing in, however, and so it would feel very embarassing if that were to happen to one of us. We feel his misfortune but also understand that he could have avoided the embarassment by having written his texts in a scientific manner instead of trying to transform himself into a literary genius.

Hence we rejoice in some moments of Schadenfreude. He deserves it because he made it that way by choice.

Do you understand this strange mentality a little better?

[dadsm3]

The only German I know is the word for 'bra': holtzem und stoppemfromfloppen : :D

[Socke]

The only German I know is the word for 'bra': holtzem und stoppemfromfloppen : :D

Hm, that sounds swedish to me :D

[Kevin]

That's dada ! The word for bra is "Brüstenhalter" or "BH" (bayhaa) for short.

[doubs43]

Hi, Bill, there is something here called "Schadenfreude" - glee over someone else's misfortune. This happens when the person deserves it.

Hence we rejoice in some moments of Schadenfreude. He (Puts) deserves it because he made it that way by choice.

It's also possible that Mr. Puts understands the principle that there's no such thing as bad publicity. By being controversial, he creates publicity and thus his exposure to new people is ever widening. His purpose is to have as many people as possible read his material. He would seem to be successful in that regard.

Just a thought.

Walker

[Way]

Hi Bill,

I never said Puts deserves anything. I just said his writing is too verbose for me.
Just wanted to clarify.

Way

[Bertram2]

but also understand that he could have avoided the embarassment by having written his texts in a scientific manner instead of trying to transform himself into a literary genius.


Kevin,
but how to talk in a scientific manner about a content in which isn't really scientific ?
In his case content and style are a well chosen combo, related to his intentions at least. The other way round you could say his style reveals his intentions, which are only to feed the emotions of one side. The scientific look is just a thin paint over his
"tests".

bertram

[Honu-Hugger]

Bill,
I'm particularly interested in a point you made (#4), and I quote you:

"I don't understand it. I've asked the question here - even those whom I normally have some respect for seem not to be able to give a reasonable answer. They say: (snip)...
4) I think it is funny to make fun of peoples' names (Putz vice Puts)...(snip)"

Did someone actually write these words in this thread as you assert, because if they did I have missed it. Or is this your own perception based upon the childhood trauma you mention invovling name-calling that apparently you have not resolved into your adulthood. I am a guilty party to the Puts/Putz reference but I do not make a habit of calling people names; in this case Putz happens to sum up my feelings for Puts perfectly.

You also make some blanket assumptions that certainly do not apply to me and I suspect also do not apply to many others. I do not regularly read Puts to hate him; I quit reading Puts years ago after spending just enough time reading his "work" to conclude he is a pompous ass...and that was while I still owned Leica cameras. A pompous ass is my opinion and mine alone -- I don't ask that others share it but many seem to. I also have not listened to Rush's show since his drug problems surfaced...and my dislike for him remains as well. It's about character and integrity, something Rush is completely without.

[Honu-Hugger]

Bill,
My feeling is that too much has been made of this, and I have never had an issue with you personally. I do have a deep dislike for Puts that has nothing to do with the camera he represents; by way of offering my respect to you personally you have my word that I will no longer make any references to the man or his name. Quite frankly he is very much a non-issue in my life because as I stated before I gave him a fair chance, I read him without prejudice and formed my opinions of him entirely on my own years ago with no outside influence. In fact, my opinions of him were formed in an environment that seemed to worship him -- obviously I do not. I have no desire to argue any of these points further because I doubt that we are really at odds when it comes to racial epithets or other derogatory terms...peace? :)

[egpj]

I would like to say that I never knew "Putz" was a vulgar term for "Penis". I would also like to add that I originally thought his name was spelled P U T Z. hmmm, my bag.

Glenn

[Frank Granovski]

He's probably a smart guy but between his gobbledygook and his right wing Leica slant, no thanks. :cool:

[Huck Finn]

I also find the ad hominem attacks on Erwin to be useless. I have posted earlier in this thread that I am a Puts fan. I own 2 of his books. He provides a valuable service & when he offers it on the internet, it is free.

I have also said earlier in this thread that I was disappointed with his ZI review because of its superficiality - which stands in sharp contrast with his reviews of Leica equipment & of the new Zeiss lenses. I don't care if he likes this camera - or any camera - but I do expect to receive from him analysis & information that I can't get elsewhere. This review failed miserably in that regard.

Like many others who become lightning rods for one thing or another, Erwin brings a certain amount of this on himself. This review of the ZI was a good example of that because much of it was just plain silly. The silliness deserves a good laugh. :D Here are some examples:

"The ZI feels substantially lighter than my M7, but also less solidly built. This initial impression may be wrong, but is still there."

MAY be wrong?! :rolleyes: I'm sorry, it's bad enough when this stuff appears on message boards, but I expect more of a published author providing a professional review. I expect him to find out if it's wrong or if it's right. I'd like to know. He compounds this nonsense by going on to claim that the shininess of the metal finsish contributes to the perception of "lightness" - an adept play on words, especially for a man whose English is a second language, but pure nonsense all the same. And he can't leave this denigration alone. It becomes a theme in the review as he goes on to say:

"Handling the camera from a tactile point of view gives one the impression of lightness verging on the brink of cheapness. This is a pity as the camera as a whole is most pleasurable to use and a joy to own."

Erwin needs to make up his mind here. Is the ZI "cheap" - which to most people means junk - or is it a "joy to own"? From one extreme of hyperbole to the other. The disappointment here is that Erwin knows better. He says that the major reason for the camera's weight is due to the use of magnesium. He wrote in his review of the Leica R9 about how Leica was able to achieve weight reduction through the use of magnesium in the top cover. He explains in great detail how Leica was able to overcome the limitations of magnesium as a metal through a complex manufacturing process that took place in 3 different countries. In the case of the R9, he describes magnesium as "a very high cost material." That doesn't sound like "cheap" to me. But that was when he was describing its use by Leica. Of course, all of this begs the question of why a camera's weight should give the impression of "cheapness" to begin with. Did God in heaven determine a magical ideal weight for a camera? For some people & in certain uses, lighter weight becomes a desirable alternative. What these comments about weight reveal is that the entire review is written by way of comparison with the M7, not simply as a description & evaluation of the ZI as a camera in its own right. Nonetheless, Erwin goes on to say:

"The ZI is an independent design and should not be interpreted as a cheaper competitor to the Leica M series."

I wish that he had taken hiw own advice. As noted in my first quote, the lack of desirability of the weight is determined by comparison with the M7. He further criticizes the body contours, the depth of the body, & the glossiness of the finish all by comparison with the M7. He then concludes the following:

"If the ZI can evolve beyond being seen as an upgraded version of the Bessa and a cheaper cousin of the Leica M, then we have an interesting new player on the stage of the CRF theater."

Flowery language aside, who the heck is seeing the ZI as a "cheaper cousin of the Leica M"? Well . . . anyone who just read Erwin's review. He just told us in my previous quote that it shouldn't be viewed this way, but in this last sentence of his review, he says that this is exactly where it is & that it needs to somehow "evolve beyond that" - whatever that means.

Again, Erwin needs to make up his mind. In his concluding paragraph, he says the following:

"If pure photography is your goal and computer assisted manipulation not your specialty, then the ZI and its lenses can create superb pictures in the time honored tradition of the straight (documentary) photography. The camera is not perfect in its present incarnation. The camera needs more substance and profile in order to become a viable contender on the present RF scene."

"Not perfect in its present incarnation?" Of course not because we know from Mr. Puts' review of the M7 where perfection lies since he titled that review: "One Step Closer to Perfection." It needs "more substance and profile?" Meaning that it needs to be more like an M7 - as stated in the body of his review. Once again all of this begs the bigger question of why it needs any of this since he had just finished saying that it's perfectly capable of "creat(ing) superb pictures." What more does he want?

Tom Abrahamsson was clear, specific, & detailed in his description of the shortcomings of the ZI from his point of view. Erwin unfortunately is vague with his vapid references to "cheapness," "feel," & the need for it to "evolve." He only adds to his confusing presentation when these remarks are contrasted with the following:

"(The ZI) will appeal to seasoned photographers who want to enjoy the pleasures and results of a finely engineered mechanical precision camera, coupled to a range of ZI lenses that do sit at the top of the market performance wise . . ."

Huh? Make up your mind, Erwin. Is it "cheap" or a "highly engineered mechanical predision camera"?

And now for the ultimate in silliness - just a pure "Erwinism" - is the following quote, which is his conclusion of a discussion about the film advance lever:

"I have dwelled some time on this topic as it is one of the more important aspects to deal with when analising a mechanical camera. The mental act of preparing for the next photo is set between the moment that the shutter is pressed and the film is wound on for the next exposure. The CRF is famous for its propensity to synchronise the compositional state of the scene and the mental state of the phtographer. The mechanical movements of the camera should not distract from this synchronisation. The "emptiness" of the transport does interfere with the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF."

Ohhh, Momma! :eek: Be still my heart! :rolleyes: Why have I been wasting my time paying attention to my subject? Why have I concerned my self with managing exposure? Erwin has just introduced "the zen of the film advance." I should have been concerning myself with meditation between shots. :D Okay, I apologise for the sarcasm. It's just too much fun to resist. It's all such silliness from an author who goes to great pains to use a scientific approach in his evaluation of optics. We've come 180 degrees from MTF charts & lines per meter to Zen & meditation.

I will continue to read Erwin for his discussion of optics, which involves superb analysis. But his review of this camera leaves me flat while at the same time regaling me with laughter. It's a shame because his reviews of Leica cameras have shown that he can do so much better.

Huck

[Frank Granovski]

I would like to say that I never knew "Putz" was a vulgar term for "Penis"This ding-dong term is "Wussa" in German, "putka" in Ukrainian and "kear" in Farsi. :cool:

[dadsm3]

Frank: German/Ukrainian/Iranian?
Now that I know I'm a right-winger for having Leica stuff.....maybe I should buy some Zorki's and Feds........
Great thread: " How do your politics influence your RF preference?"
Mike

[Frank Granovski]

How do your politics influence your RF preference?"That's a tough one. I guess I'll stick with Cosina because they're made for the masses. :cool:

[egpj]

He's probably a smart guy but between his gobbledygook and his right wing Leica slant, no thanks. :cool:

Damn! That's what my x-wife told the judge! :D

[Frank Granovski]

You shouldn't 've married 'er! ;)

[Socke]

This ding-dong term is "Wussa" in German, :cool:

And where did you here that? I should know this, given the time I spent in german speaking countries :-)

[Frank Granovski]

'Er, my late parents spoke German? 'Er my mother's from Berlin? 'Er, My dad was form a Romanian region formally Austrian? :cool:

PS: 'er, I still have family in Germany? Even in Breman? (Yes, it's true.)

[Bertram2]

'Er, my late parents spoke German? 'Er my mother's from Berlin? 'Er, My dad was form a Romanian region formally Austrian? :cool:

PS: 'er, I still have family in Germany? Even in Breman? (Yes, it's true.)

Frank,

I never heard this word ever before either, no clue where it is coming from, maybe Austria or Romania .

Bertram

[summilux]

those who think he is not as opinionated as Puts please raise their hands.

[back alley]

those who think he is not as opinionated as Puts please raise their hands.


'he' who?


.

[Kevin]

The mental act of preparing for the next photo is set between the moment that the shutter is pressed and the film is wound on for the next exposure. The CRF is famous for its propensity to synchronise the compositional state of the scene and the mental state of the phtographer. The mechanical movements of the camera should not distract from this synchronisation. The "emptiness" of the transport does interfere with the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF.


This stream of consciousness can only happen when you're shooting stoned.

[Honu-Hugger]

"I have dwelled some time on this topic as it is one of the more important aspects to deal with when analising a mechanical camera. The mental act of preparing for the next photo is set between the moment that the shutter is pressed and the film is wound on for the next exposure. The CRF is famous for its propensity to synchronise the compositional state of the scene and the mental state of the phtographer. The mechanical movements of the camera should not distract from this synchronisation. The "emptiness" of the transport does interfere with the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF."

At last something worthwhile has come out of this thread; now I know why all of my pictures look like crap -- it's that "mechanical movements" and "synchronisation" thing. Either my cameras don't have it, or they do and I don't...:D

[Frank Granovski]

Oops. "Putka" in Ukrainian actually is the female XXXX. It must have been late when I posted this.Frank,

I never heard this word ever before either, no clue where it is coming from, maybe Austria or Romania .

BertramWell, maybe this impolite German slang word for XXXXX isn't used anymore in modern Germany; however, the Germans I know know this word. :D

The Zeiss Ikon forever!! :cool:
The Zeiss Ikon forever!! :cool:
The Zeiss Ikon forever!! :cool:

[sgy1962]

ZI owners will be disappointed, unless someone comes out with a glowing review of their new acquisition.

Putts is just one man's opinion. And you have to remember that English is probably his second language, so some degree of interpretation is needed to devine what he is actually saying.

If your happy with the camera, who cares what the reviews say about that item.

[Huck Finn]

Putts is just one man's opinion. If your happy with the camera, who cares what the reviews say about that item.

Stephen, I actually agree with you completely about his being just one opinion. I could care less whether he likes the camera & lenses. Everyone's entitled to like what they like.

My disappointment with his review is that I didn't learn anything from it. It was no different than any other of a number of user reviews. His Leica reviews are so much more informative. I would have liked him to take me inside the camera to explain things that I can't see on my own. I would also have liked him to evaluate build quality - for better or worse - & to explain his conclusions, maybe even post pictures of the inner workings of the camera. He is more than capable of doing an excellent job with that kind of in depth review. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I expected much more from him than the superficial report that he posted.

Huck

[Palaeoboy]

I think that his comments on the winder being so light affecting your picture taking mindset is just about the most obsurd thing I have ever heard him utter. He damages his own crediblity with nonsense like that.

[RJBender]

Stephen, I actually agree with you completely about his being just one opinion. I could care less whether he likes the camera & lenses. Everyone's entitled to like what they like.

My disappointment with his review is that I didn't learn anything from it. It was no different than any other of a number of user reviews. His Leica reviews are so much more informative. I would have liked him to take me inside the camera to explain things that I can't see on my own. I would also have liked him to evaluate build quality - for better or worse - & to explain his conclusions, maybe even post pictures of the inner workings of the camera. He is more than capable of doing an excellent job with that kind of in depth review. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I expected much more from him than the superficial report that he posted.

Huck

Good idea. Show the similarities and differences between the ZI and the Bessa.

R.J.

[Bertram2]

Putts is just one man's opinion..

That is true at the first sight. But that is not how presents himself. His pseudo-scientific "tests" pretend to be objective and that's the way he has made himself beeing a public instance of competence.

A reference point for all those whose opinion he confirmes and those who are naive enuff not to ask what for this show is organized. He is influencing a public opinion.
When a newspaper prints tendentious articles it is to be senn different from me saying my opinion somewhere in a bar.

So in fact it is NOT true that this stuff is just one man's opinion.

And THAT is what makes many people upset, NOT that he wasn't willing to write a glowing report about the Zeiss Ikon, NOT that he is a pompous dunnowhat as some say, NOT that his English is strange and EVEN NOT that he is a Leica fan !!

Tho this is all very simple it seems to be hard to understand. I've read so many pro-Puts or "anti- antiPuts" statements or some of that kind which pretend not to understand what the fuss is all about this man: Is this hypocrisy or naivety ?
Or do even Leica owners feel embarrassed enuff by his activities to feel the urge to belittle the significance of his biased output ?

bertram

[back alley]

i think you all give this man way too much power.

don't agree with him?
move on silently and don't let him have his impact.

mho

[Mazurka]

i think you all give this man way too much power.

don't agree with him?
move on silently and don't let him have his impact.

I don't think his kind of nonsense will simply go away if Leica infidels like us just "move on silently."

Besides, it's only natural to laugh at smart-ass comics - especially in North America. :D

Though entirely unintentional, Erwin's babbles do have their merits and teach a good lesson: if you worship a brand hard enough and long enough, it will become an absurd fanaticism. :D

This could be a reason why I started to use an SMC Takumar and Jupiter 9 on my Japanese Contax last year. Heck, I even use a lowly Ultron made by Cosina with my Leica before that! ;)

[back alley]

I don't think his kind of nonsense will simply go away if Leica infidels like us just "move on silently."

Besides, it's only natural to laugh at smart-ass comics - especially in North America. :D

Though entirely unintentional, Erwin's babbles do have their merits and teach a good lesson: if you worship a brand hard enough and long enough, it will become an absurd fanaticism. :D

This could be a reason why I started to use an SMC Takumar and Jupiter 9 on my Japanese Contax last year. Heck, I even use a lowly Ultron made by Cosina with my Leica before that! ;)

old news...blah blah blah

[Mazurka]

old news...blah blah blah

So how did you know exactly what kind of mix-n-match I do? I never mentioned it before :D

[doubs43]

Heck, I even use a lowly Ultron made by Cosina with my Leica before that! ;)

Heretic!! :D

Walker

[back alley]

Though entirely unintentional, Erwin's babbles do have their merits and teach a good lesson: if you worship a brand hard enough and long enough, it will become an absurd fanaticism.

that's the old part.
i find it amazing that just about every time someone posts about puts we have a small war here.
he ain't worth it in my books.
joe

[Brian Sweeney]

> those who think he is not as opinionated as Puts please raise their hands.

I never have any strong opinions, and even if I did.... I would never think of expressing them...

At least about cameras. I like most all of them. Even the Prominent.

[Frank Granovski]

I'm keeping my hands in my pockets for this one. Thanks. :rolleyes:

[yossarian]

I enjoy Erwin. He reminds me of Pauline Kael who was the New Yorker film critic for
many years. Her rants ran the gamut from plausible to preposterous (she said "Last
Tango In Paris" would "change the face of film as art". Uh-huh.)

But she was just knowledgeable enough that she couldn't be dismissed, and she acquired a cult of "Paulettes" who were the true believers.

I guess I've just figured out how to interpret his florid style and pick the substance
out of it.

He writes better than Tom Clancy...

[Honu-Hugger]

i think you all give this man way too much power.

don't agree with him?
move on silently and don't let him have his impact.

mho
Or have fun with him -- he certainly sets himself up for ridicule :D. Like any public figure he's fair game for lampooning.

[Honu-Hugger]

> those who think he is not as opinionated as Puts please raise their hands.

I never have any strong opinions, and even if I did.... I would never think of expressing them...

At least about cameras. I like most all of them. Even the Prominent.
Brian,
I'm with you on this one -- I am fascinated by almost every camera, even the "failed" designs. It is interesting to see what the design intent was and in some cases to try to adapt and embrace it (Rollei 35's for instance :)). I just plain like cameras...

[Kevin]

Perhaps Puts writes his texts in Dutch first and then translates them word-for-word? Those strange phrases he uses could be normal in his native language and thus he might not have understood yet that they sound foolish in english.

The same thing could happen to a native German speaker whose english skills are extremely weak. This is a famous conversation between two german travellers in an airplane flying to the UK:

"Honey, how much watch is it?"
"It's four watch."
"Such much?!"

Puts' grotesque spelling mistakes in the past suggest that a native speaker did not look those texts over before publication. Maybe now he is using a spell-checker but has not yet gotten around to having a professional translator remove the idiosyncratic phrases which do not sound right in english (in this particular context).

If he is doing this on purpose, however, then the others are right. Bad publicity is good for him and you are feeding his undeserved power by paying attention to him. Either send him an email and ask him to stop writing foolishly or ignore him completely.

Posting his poorly-translated texts on this forum, however, and then talking about them and the author is a complete waste of mental energy and time.

[Mazurka]

Posting his poorly-translated texts on this forum, however, and then talking about them and the author is a complete waste of mental energy and time.

First, we don't know whether he merely translates from Dutch or writes directly in English - I would think it's the latter. After all, he's been writing his stuff for years. And believe me, word-for-word translations actually take longer to do - basically you write the same thing twice - unless you use translation software with their even funnier renditions. :p

Second, as others and I have pointed out, his absurdities are not limited to poor choice of words and badly constructed phrases (which are forgiveable for someone writing in a foreign language.) They include logical contradictions even within the same page. His multiple standards on non-Leica brands are also infamous.

I agree that you should ignore him if you don't find him interesting. To the rest of us, Puts is just like the Comedy Network - with their apt slogan "It's Time Well Wasted." :D

[Huck Finn]

I agree with Mazurka. It's important to note that Erwin is not just another guy with a website. He is a published author who writes professionally about Leica equipment & other related equipment. He sells books & they are published in English, so he is either familiar enough with English to be facile in it or he has the resources to have it properly translated. And I say this as someone who likes much of what he writes & who has bought his books.

I don't subscribe to name calling or to ridiculing him or anyone else for the sake of getting a cheap laugh. But his writings are subject to criticism like anyone else's.

Huck

[Kevin]

I had never heard about Puts until someone posted a thread about his writings a few months back. Agreed, there are many logical contradictions to be found in his texts if you pay some attention.

Sometimes using translation software and cleaning up the obvious wrong bits is faster. I would bet he uses a combination of both.

I would also dare to say that sometimes it is important to read the ramblings of a fool to feel more confident about one's own ability to articulate and reason.

[Frank Granovski]

I guess through ownership of every Teutonic and non-Teutonic M qualifies him to exercise Putsisms (or Seussisms); and he be the man. :)

[pvdhaar]

Perhaps Puts writes his texts in Dutch first and then translates them word-for-word? Those strange phrases he uses could be normal in his native language and thus he might not have understood yet that they sound foolish in english.
I think Erwin falls into a trap that most Dutch do. It's not a limited vocabulary that is the problem. It's the abundance of multiple subordinate clauses in his sentences. That is, sentences built up of smaller sentences separated by commas.

Liberal use of the 'bijzin' is natural to the Dutch. It's less appropriate in English, where it's mostly limited to one clause. Many Dutch would consider him eloquent, well able to construct a valid reasoning, and wouldn't notice anything odd in his writings. As for the rest of the world.... 'It is me what!' ;)

[Mazurka]

I would also dare to say that sometimes it is important to read the ramblings of a fool to feel more confident about one's own ability to articulate and reason.

Very well said, Kevin! I could use it as a nice quote! :D

Liberal use of the 'bijzin' is natural to the Dutch. It's less appropriate in English, where it's mostly limited to one clause. Many Dutch would consider him eloquent, well able to construct a valid reasoning, and wouldn't notice anything odd in his writings. As for the rest of the world.... 'It is me what!'

Well Peter, you don't sound pompous to me even though you're Dutch. ;)

[RJBender]

Does anyone remember that Slim Gaillard song from the 1950's? People have sung it using the word putzy instead of putty. It's a very common mistake. http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/images/smilies/jester.gif

Cement mixer, putty putty
Cement mixer, putty putty
Cement mixer, putty putty
Cement mixer, putty putty
Cement mixer, putty putty
A puddle o’ vooty, a puddle o’ gooty,
A puddle o’ scooby, a puddle o’ veet concrete.
First you get some gravel, pour it on the vout
To mix a mess o’ mortar
You add cement and water
See the mellow roony
Come out slurp slurp slurp.

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/c/cementmixerputtyputty.shtml


R.J.

[Trius]

Seems this thread has interminable subordinate clauses... :rolleyes: ;)

[Kevin]

Very well said, Kevin! I could use it as a nice quote! :D

Of course, I gave up all copyright by posting to this forum :D

[ZeissFan]

[I AM GOING TO EDIT THIS A THIRD TIME -- make it less "mean"]

I have no issue with the author, only his critique. His conclusions are not based on hard evidence, and he falls into the typical trap of using a feature-for-feature pass-or-fail comparison with Leica.

Expounding further, his conclusion regarding the body feeling "less solidly built" is based on weight, rather than actual operation -- which he acknowledges.

And to conclude that the Zeiss Ikon shutter will be less durable than the Leica's shutter is mystifying. How does he know how durable the shutter will be?

Overall, I am not impressed with the review or the approach that the writer has taken. A potential buyer would take very little from the review that would provide any assistance other than "it isn't as good as a Leica."

[Uncle Bill]

Having not met Erwin Puts I am going to reserve judgement, now I have been to his site on occasion, and having read his review of the Zeiss Ikon, he could have written it better. English is not Erwin's first language, its one thing to speak it but something else to write, especially you have a lot of technical information. Having not played with a Zeiss Ikon I will not dispute his findings at the moment, if I do win one with the photo contest, I will be doing a review of my own. Safe to say english is the linuga franca of this forum, and for the majority of us its our mother tongue. Bear in mind if I am going to try to communicate in my vastly limited french, english grammer will come through. Writing for the web is a skill, something I am currently learning, I take Erwin is doing this on his own time cut him some slack on the delivery and instead of doing what amounts to a flame, how about a counter review on the Zeiss Ikon.

Bill

[bobofish]

Kevin,
If every educated person gets to create three or four classic lines, turns of wit or intelligent riposte, with that "ramblings of a fool..." comment you've certainly hit one of your classics for your whole life.

The bad news is that it may all be downhill from there... :p

[Huck Finn]

Having not met Erwin Puts I am going to reserve judgement, now I have been to his site on occasion, and having read his review of the Zeiss Ikon, he could have written it better. English is not Erwin's first language, its one thing to speak it but something else to write, especially you have a lot of technical information.

Bill

I have to agree with Zeiss Fan on this one. It's not HOW it's written; it's the conclusions. He contradicts himself both within the article & with other things he has written elsewhere. He says that he doesn't know whether the impression of "cheapness" due to light weight is valid or not, but then continues to criticize the camera for this without any substantiation. (See my earlier post in this thread.) And some of what he says is just plain silly . . . & it's not a matter of awkward phrasing.

Remember this man is a professional author, a professional writer. He has written a number of books & has had them published in English. I own a couple of them & have no problem reading him in English.

I am not saying any of this based onthe thinking that his review is negative toward the ZI. It's not; it actually says some good things about the camera. It's just not an in depth review. It's not up to the standards of his own reviews regarding Leica cameras.

Read his section about the "Rapid Advance Lever." He goes off the deep end & it has nothing to do with his familiarity with the language. It's about Zen & your camera. This is not something new for him because he writes about this same "synchronicity" in his Leica M reviews. It just stands out more in this review because there isn't as much substance to the rest of it as there is in his Leica reviews. This is just plain hogwash in any language IMHO.

I don't know why anyone who has actually read this review would defend it. He has written much else that is worthwhile & that I personally have used & found helpful. This is just not one of his better efforts.

Huck

[Frank Granovski]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html

I like the bottom one because you can point it toward the sun for those sun rise and sun set shots without the shutter frying. :cool:

[vincentbenoit]

Having read the article in question and most of the posts in this thread I would like to make two comments:
1. No camera is perfect.
2. No camera review is perfect.

Vincent

[leafy]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c021.html

I like the bottom one because you can point it toward the sun for those sun rise and sun set shots without the shutter frying. :cool:

Has anyone noticed that the Ikon's bottom half of the body is not cut as deeply as the M7. I tried mounting the 50/2 DR on my bessa-t and found that the back protruding sleeve of the lens gets stuck and cannot be mounted. Does the Ikon have such problem too?

[Huck Finn]

Something that has gone unmentioned in this discussion is Erwin's observation that "the optical construction of the rangefinder has its roots in the classical M3 finder, not the current M6 design." The M3 rangefinder is reputed to be a more precise focusing instrument than the one that succeeded it. Here is another comment from Puts about it:

"The optical construction of the M3 range/viewfinder is different from that of all successor models. It is more elaborate to build, more sensitivie to shocks and abuses . . . On the other hand, it gives a very clear (if not more contrasty) life size view that is remarkably flare free when used in adverse lighting conditions." Apparently it is only the optics that are "sensitive" & not the mechanism itself because in another part of the same article Erwin goes on to say: "The rangefinder of the M3 is a very durable mechanism that hardly needs adjustment.:

So, why did they change it for the M2 & succeeding models?

I perused some of the other articles that Erwin has on his site and found one that indicates that the M3 rangefinder was designed to focus lenses of 50 mm & longer. It was necessary for Leica to develop a different design to accomodate the needs of wide angle lenses of shorter focal lengths, i.e the 35 mm lenses for the M2. The problem with the successor design is that the light is projected forward at several angles after it enters the camera, angles which do not exist in the M3 design. Such angles create problems, i.e. opportunities for stray light & hence, glare - the notorious curse of some M6's .

So, how did Zeiss & Cosina adapat the M3 range/viewfinder for use with the wide angle views of the 28 & 35 mm lenses that are focused in the ZI viewfinder? This is something that Leica has apparently not been able to do. I have e-mailed Puts with this question but have not yet received a reply. I will post it if & when I hear from him. At this point, I will also e-mail Zeiss to see if they can shed any "light" on this - no pun intended.

Anyway, so much for all of the comments that the ZI is just a "re-badged Bessa." We now know that Zeiss chose a range/viewfinder that "is more elaborate to build" in order to gain greater focus precision & that they incurred additional development costs to adapt an older design to do this. It has also been reported elsewhere that the electronic controls in the shutter mechanism are a brand new design, developed specifically for this camera to achieve greater timing precision. They could have simply recycled the Bessa designs for these two key elements of the camera, but they did not.

More later . . .

Huck

[vincentbenoit]

Anyway, so much for all of the comments that the ZI is just a "re-badged Bessa." We now know that Zeiss chose a range/viewfinder that "is more elaborate to build" in order to gain greater focus precision & that they incurred additional development costs to adapt an older design to do this. It has also been reported elsewhere that the electronic controls in the shutter mechanism are a brand new design, developed specifically for this camera to achieve greater timing precision. They could have simply recycled the Bessa designs for these two key elements of the camera, but they did not.They did, however, contend themselves with using a flimsy piece of plastic to hold the back door... Why? Anyway, thanks Huck for the interesting post.

Vincent

[Huck Finn]

The "flimsy plastic" is just the external latch - & so far it's doing the job just fine on my ZI. The internal claw-like clasp that actually "holds" the door is metal.

[Sonnar2]

Having read the article in question and most of the posts in this thread I would like to make two comments:
1. No camera is perfect.
2. No camera review is perfect.
Vincent
True, very true... I'm pretty sure E.Puts isn't ambitious to write some kind of RF bible. hopefully you guys critizicing Puts' "non-native" English will never take *my* camera website so serious.. I did received critics of GERMAN readers who called my mother-language "pidgeon-Deutsch"... just because I started some of the texts in English and later-on build the German page...

cheers Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_main.html

[Huck Finn]

Who's criticizing his "non-native English"? :confused: ?\

[Sonnar2]

people supposing his judgements are influenced by ill translating into English

[RML]

As for the pronunciation - I cannot help, although there is a thing at the following address that allows one to hear the names of Dutch master painters being said by a Dutchman - http://www.essentialvermeer.com/dutch-painters/dpainters_wo/twenty_dutch_masterpieces.htm#How%20to - It might give a clue and is a good site for anyone interested in Dutch art. Incidentally, I understand that the Dutch pronunciation of van Gogh (and indeed the pronunciation he himself would have used) is a million miles from that used in the US. Well you learn a new thing...

The "u" in Puts is pronounced like the "u" in "Dutch", so it is indeed quite close to "putz".

The "g" and "gh" in "van Gogh" are pronounced like the "ch" in "loch" (like in Loch Ness). I'm not going to try to explain the "a" in "van". :)

[RML]

English is not Erwin's first language, its one thing to speak it but something else to write, especially you have a lot of technical information.

The problem isn't his non-native English, like mine. The problem is he writes too woolly, too fluffy and tries to imitate the language of many art critiquers. Often his writings just don't make sense to me as I can make no hear nor tail of it. That, and his ever so clear biases towards anything Leica, make me disregard his reviews. Whenever I feel I should read one, I get reminded why I stopped doing so last time. That's not to say his reviews might contain nuggets of gold. I'm just not patient enough to sift through a ton of soil to find a grain of gold.

[Huck Finn]

people supposing his judgements are influenced by ill translating into English

I don't think that has been the point of this thread. I have read his work extensively & own a couple of his books. I find much of what he has written to be informative. However, I didn't find his review of the ZI to be very informative for the most part. It's this review that is the topic here. Go to his website (www.imx.nl). Read both his ZI review & his review of the M7. then tell me if you think that both of these reviews are equally comprehensive & in depth.

In regard to his "non-native English," remember that this isn't just another guy with a website, stumbling around in a foreign language. He is a published author, whose work is published in English as well as in his native language. He is regarded as an expert on Leica equipment & other related rangefinder equipment (Canon, Konica, Cosina Voigtlander, & Zeiss). He represents his work as being based on scientific testing of the equipment he reviews. He is & should be held to a higher standard than most.

I'm amazed that this thread repeatedly degenerates into a discussion of the author instead of being about the eqipment that he reviews.

Huck

[Sonnar2]

Hi Huck,
I like his articles too, but at some point, he *is* just another nice guy with a website... one can agree or disagree. What can be measured about cameras like optical aberrations on lenses, leading to certain picture results, leading to certain MTF-graphs? Shutter precision? Shutter response time? Size, weight, material and handling issues? Maybe this is too philosophical for a pure technical analysis. But he addresses that in some (the "Zen") way... :)

cheers, Frank

[Huck Finn]

Hi Huck,
I like his articles too, but at some point, he *is* just another nice guy with a website... one can agree or disagree. What can be measured about cameras like optical aberrations on lenses, leading to certain picture results, leading to certain MTF-graphs? Shutter precision? Shutter response time? Size, weight, material and handling issues? Maybe this is too philosophical for a pure technical analysis. But he addresses that in some (the "Zen") way... :)

cheers, Frank

Point well taken, Frank. I often like what Erwin writes a great deal. I didn't think that he gave the ZI a bad review. . . He liked some things, he didn't like some others. I was just disappointed that the depth of the review wasn't up to the standard that he has set for himself with his Leica reviews - in this case, his much more thorough M7 review would be the comparison.

For example, he says: "The ZI feels substantially lighter than the M7, but also less solidly built. This initial impression may be wrong, but is still there." There is no problem with language here; his meaning is clear. My complaint is that he leaves it there. He doesn't pursue the question about build quality that he has just raised - despite the fact that he acknowledges that the initial impression may be wrong! He raises doubt by inuendo & without factual support. If you read his Leica reviews, you see that he leaves no such stone unturned. In fact, in his review of the R9, he goes into great detail to explain Leica's use of magnesium to lighten the camera & why it represents high quality. It is this same use of magnesium instead of brass that accounts for most of the lighter weight of the ZI, yet it seems that he can't be bothered explaining it. Such cursory treatment of key issues in this review while using them to create misgivings without any substance disappointed me. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

Huck

[Huck Finn]

Writing for the web is a skill, something I am currently learning, I take Erwin is doing this on his own time cut him some slack on the delivery and instead of doing what amounts to a flame, how about a counter review on the Zeiss Ikon.

Bill

Bill, I assume that your comments were in response to ZeissFan. Since it's been a few days & he hasn't replied, I think that it's only fair to point out that he has done an extensive review of the camera & has set up a blog with ongoing reports. See it at http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon. His comments certainly do not represent a flame.

Yes, writing for the web is a skill, but remember that Erwin is a professional writer, a published author in both English & German. He makes good money for his writing. He has been posting his reviews on the website for many years. This is much more than a part time hobby for him. The issue here is not his writing skills nor his facility with a second language.


Huck

[Huck Finn]

In his review of the Zeiss Ikon, Erwin says that the rangefinder design is similar to that of the M3 & different than that of the rangefinder design used on every other Leica M camera.

I was intrigued by this statement & looked elsewhere on his webite (www.imx.nl) for more information on the topic. Relevant explanations can be found in 2 articles in his Leica Pages- "Choosing Leica M Cameras" in the M-System section and "Rangefinder from M3 to M7" in the Engineering Section. Included was information on why the new design (M2 & thereafter) was more flare prone than the M3, but otherwise these articles actually raised more questions:

1. Why does he describe the M3 rangefinder mechanism at one point as "very sensitive to shocks & abuses" but later as a "very durable mechanism that hardly needs adjustment"?

2. He says that Leica replaced the M3 rangefinder with a different one because the earlier one was only effective with focal lengths of 50 mm & longer, but could not accomodate the wider angles of shorter lenses. If so, how was Carl Zeiss able to base their rangefinder on the M3 design when the ZI is used with a viewfinder that accomodates lenses as short as 28 mm & their accompanying wide angle views?

I posed these questons to Carl Zeiss AG & today received a long & detailed e-mail from their Engineering Dept. Here are some excerpts fro that e-mail:

In reply to question #1: "The optical path of the M3 rangefinder was more complex than that of the later Leica models. It contained 3 prisms for beam deflection while all later Leica models have just one. Such a more complex system is more elaborate to adjust during assembly, and at least theoretically the risk of misalignment by later mechanical stress of the camera is higher. . . (But) a theoretical risk is not necessarily a real problem if things are well made. It is more an academic issue. The long product lifetime of the M3 from 1954 to 1967 suggests that it was a reliable piece. And it was in the '60s, that the Nikon F and a Leica M were the regular companions of photojournalists going to rough places.

In reply to question #2: "The M2 finder, which is basically still used today, was cost saving by its ingenious simplicity. But it is not true that the basic advantages of the optical path of the M3 cannot be combined with the larger viewing angles of the main finder, as the Zeiss Ikon is proof.

"This camera (ZI) uses again the basic layout of the M3 rangefinder path with the 3 beam deflections by 90 degrees. It has a similarity to the M3, but it is not a copy of the M3 rangefinder, as it uses different types of prisms to produce an upright image, and a different way to control the rangefinder viewing angle, and it has a different merging point of the view to the bright-line frames and the view to the rangefinder window.

"One difference which the camera user will notice: the rangefinder patch of the ZI does not move with the parallax compensation of the frames, but keeps its position on the optical axis.

"One basic idea of the M3 rangefinder is as well used in the Zeiss Ikon: the frame mask is parallel & close to the illumination window. . . Thus, the Zeiss Ikon shares with the M3 a very low tendency for rangefinder flare. In all non-M3 Leica finders, the frame mask is oblique to the illumination window & more into the interior of the camera. Thus, the frame illumination needs some support by additional optical elements - & they are partly the source of possible rangefinder flare, which always existed to some extent (post-M3) & became more pronounced with the modifications for the frames of the M4-2. Recent MP & M7 cameras use a new design for the frame illumination which reduces the flare problem, but not to the same level as the M3 & the Zeiss Ikon."

I was impressed with the priority on customer service at Carl Zeiss AG that would allow one of their engineers to take the time to provide this level of information to a single customer - a level of information that was longer & even more detailed than what I have reproduced here. I greatly appreciate the fact that they accomodated my request.

Huck

[Palaeoboy]

Im impressed by their knowledge of Leicas rangefinder mechanisms!

As for Ewins comments, welcome to the world of Puts contradictions. My favourite is his comment of a particuar Voigtlander lens that this is the first time he has detected no decentering. But he says that same thing about 3 of their lenses LOL

[Way]

Huck, thanks for digging deep for more ZI info! How have you been liking your ZI?

Way

[Huck Finn]

Im impressed by their knowledge of Leicas rangefinder mechanisms!

I suspect that they know a great deal about Leica cameras & lenses.

Huck

[Huck Finn]

Huck, thanks for digging deep for more ZI info! How have you been liking your ZI?

Way

Way, I couldn't be happier. :) Focus routinely just snaps into place. I added a 35/2 Biogon a few weeks ago, courtesy of Kyle, & have been enjoying shooting with that lately. As the days grow longer, there should be better shooting opportunities than there have been. I've been especially happy with the AE, which I've been using a lot because it's so often right on the money.

Thanks for asking.

Huck

[back alley]

huck,
do you compensate with the ae or just shoot at it's recommendation?

joe

[Huck Finn]

Joe, I've been shooting at its recommendation & have been pleased with the results. this has been helpful for family shots when people are moving around & I'm trying to get "grab" shots & don't have time to fiddle. Regardless, I really wanted to use the AE for a while to see how good it is. With better weather, things may change as I take more shots that I have time to set up.

BTW, I hope that the report from Zeiss offers some reassurance on the long term stability of the rangefinder mechanism after your early bad experience with misalignment. I think yours was a fluke. This occasionally happens even with a Leica, as can be seen by reading the posts on their site. It's also nice to see that the Zeiss folks reply to us customers when we have a question. I recommend it for anyone who needs their heop or support - or who just wants to register an opinion.

Huck

[back alley]

the more i use the camera the more i like it. the lens is so very smooth to focus.
i still have not developed any of the film used so far.
my very bad.

[Way]

Huck - Glad to hear that you like the ZI so much. I too find the metering very good and
love the vf and focusing. It appears that I'm having greater success focusing my 90 cron
on the ZI than my MP (.72). I may spring for some Zeiss glass in the future! I'd love to
try the 35 and 50.

Joe - Hope you develop your film soon!

Way

[Mazurka]

He said that they want Leica to be successful. Many of them own Leica equipment & have great respect for the work that is done there. I suspect that they know a great deal about Leica cameras & lenses.

Thanks Huck, for posting a very informative reply from Zeiss --- yet again. These things should have a permanent home on the net as archived reference. Perhaps ZeissFan can host them?

It's really no surprise that Zeiss has studied the Leica M closely in developing the ZI. After all, how else could you improve an existing design? All the more amazing that they can keep the price at a fraction of the Leica, cosidering the relative costs/complexities of the ZI and M7/MP rangefinders.

It's also natural that Zeiss doesn't want Leica to go the way of the dodo. The ZI series are all the more attractive in light of Solms' pricing. Besides, what's the fun if there is no competition? Look at Michelin who is pulling out of F1 because of the single tire-manufacturer rule.

Last but not least, Zeiss might have people who don't want the almost century-long rivalry to end with the opponent's passing. ;)

[Huck Finn]

Thanks Huck, for posting a very informative reply from Zeiss --- yet again. These things should have a permanent home on the net as archived reference. Perhaps ZeissFan can host them?

I will contact Mike to see if he's interested. What would you like to see archived? Thanks for the appreciations. :)

Huck

[Michiel Fokkema]

I don't know him,

Bill Mattocks

Well,

I actually do know him and have met him several times.
He is one of the kindest people I know. He is very knowlegdable and always open for discussion. As far as I know al that he writes is about equipment he really has tested himself. He is one of the few testers whose opinion I trust and rely on.

Best regards,

Michiel Fokkema

[Michiel Fokkema]

[QUOTE=Huck Finn
Yes, writing for the web is a skill, but remember that Erwin is a professional writer, a published author in both English & German. He makes good money for his writing.


Huck[/QUOTE]

Actually Erwin is NOT a professional writer. He has a normal daytime job. I don't think he makes a lot of money. His best sold book is published by Hove. Hove doesn't pay any roalties because they are close to bankrupcy. Don't state things as true if you didn't check them.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

[Michiel Fokkema]

I think Erwin falls into a trap that most Dutch do. It's not a limited vocabulary that is the problem. It's the abundance of multiple subordinate clauses in his sentences. That is, sentences built up of smaller sentences separated by commas.

Liberal use of the 'bijzin' is natural to the Dutch. It's less appropriate in English, where it's mostly limited to one clause. Many Dutch would consider him eloquent, well able to construct a valid reasoning, and wouldn't notice anything odd in his writings. As for the rest of the world.... 'It is me what!' ;)

Hi,
Never thought about that but sounds logic to me.
If I read articles of Erwin in a Dutch Camera magazine I have no problems at all with the way he writes. Neither do I when I read him in English. But when I compare his English writings to the writings of native English writers I can see their point.
Being English by coincedence the language we have to communicate in, I think the native speakers should give us a break. Otherwise we will be forced to change the language on this forum to Dutch. :)

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

[rover]

...Being English by coincedence the language we have to communicate in, I think the native speakers should give us a break. Otherwise we will be forced to change the language on this forum to Dutch. :)

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

I have enough trouble with English after 40 years of practice, please don't make me change now.

[Palaeoboy]

"Actually Erwin is NOT a professional writer."

Sorry but he is. If you write and sign a contract to gain royalties you are considered a paid writer. Just that he has another job is irrelevent. I think most writers do actually.

[Gabriel M.A.]

A paid writer is not necessarily a professional writer. I doubt Alan Greenspan is a professional writer.

What Mr. Puts needs is a good editor, that's all.

[Huck Finn]

Actually Erwin is NOT a professional writer. He has a normal daytime job. I don't think he makes a lot of money. His best sold book is published by Hove. Hove doesn't pay any roalties because they are close to bankrupcy. Don't state things as true if you didn't check them.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

Thanks for the correction, Michael.

I like Erwin's work & don't mean to demean him. I happened to disagree with a few of his points this time.

It speaks well of you that as someone who knows him, you have come to his defense. We should all have friends like you. :cool:

Huck

[Gabriel M.A.]

Bill I'm with you so far, but please consider that some 5.8 billion people don't know words from yiddish origin and how they are used in the US.

For me Putz is part of "Hausputz" as in "cleaning your house", Putz may be a womans hat or hairdress in german as used up to the 1950s or 60s. If you dress in your best cloth, shine your shoes and get your fingernails clean to go to church on sunday, you are "herausgeputzt".

Putz is plaster, too.

So it took me some time on photo.net to understand why this is insulting and not just a misspelling.

And to Erwin Puts himself, as long as he doesn't write about motorcycles ....
Ich bin kein ... err ... alone!

Anyway, yes. Could we just let this horse go? Horsie? Mr. Horsie? You can get up now and go. Hello?

[jlw]

"This horsie is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSIE!!"

-- pirated liberally from lines originally spoken by John Cleese...

[bmattock]

"This horsie is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSIE!!"

-- pirated liberally from lines originally spoken by John Cleese...

"Nah, he's merely stunned. Beautiful horse, the Norwegian Blue. Lovely plumage.

We had to nail him to the perch. If we hadn't, he'd have muscled up to the bars, bent them open with his beak, and VOOM!"

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks