Re: [Leica] Ewrin's Gauntlet

[Stephen Gandy <leicanikon@earthlink.net>]

Ah Erwin, I am proud of you.  You finally came over to my way of
thinking, that due to the practically infinite set of variables, lens
tests of someone else's lenses conducted by someone else are not worth
the value of the ink and paper they are printed on. IF you want accurate
test results to see what YOUR lenses will do, you have to test them
yourself.  Foo on this questionable 2nd hand test results stuff that Mike
is trying to put off on you.    I mean, after all, how can anyone
seriously trust anyone len's test results except OUR OWN?     Don't feel
bad about Mike's test though, no one in their right mind thought you do
it anyway.

I have to admit though, I am looking forward to your new Leica Lens book
. It will be a great sales tool.  I can see every Leica salesman in the
world using it, as a justification to the Leica jewelry crowd that are
too lazy to test their own lenses (or in many cases, even to take
pictures).  Your book will prove what they already reasonably know:
newer design Leica lenses are almost always better than the older
designs. Which of course means higher Leica sales and more mint used
Leica equipment on the market.  Keep those tests coming Erwin, they help
make new and used camera stores a lot of money.  It doesn't matter that
you only seem to value the results of your own tests, which is a subtle
way of saying people should do their own lens tests and  not bother with
yours.

As far as the M4 quality question, you seem to have a very curiously bad
memory.   As was discussed in the LUG only a few months ago,  Leica made
a change in the M rangefinder about halfway through production of the
M4-2.  The new  viewfinder has  less parts, and a new tendency to flare
under some light conditions, making the 2nd RF image difficult if not
impossible to see.  This phenomena is well known and has been discussed
on the LUG for years.  Knowing this, how can you claim that a rangefinder
camera with an inferior rangefinder (the M6) is a camera with a better
rangefinder (the M4) ??   -- aside from the obvious consideration of
craftsmanship and finish

Again, it was great to see you were NOT fooled into believing that
someone else's lens test would have any real value to anyone else.

Stephen Gandy

Erwin Puts wrote:

> Mike's gauntlet states as rules among others:
> "All films and developers identified, all made with the  same paper,
> paper developer, enlarger, and enlarging lens. Camera lens  apertures
> used will be identified. "
> Well I admire Mike's stamina in trying to prove that there are at
> least a thousand angles that can stand on the head of a pin (see also
> Leica built quality), but his gauntlet test is so flawed as to be
> useless. First of all hie entry criteria: "All good negatives, all
> sharp, all big enlargements, all showing fine technique", are all
> beyond objective validation and comparison., so whatever negative
> passes his test will be a personal judgement, which might be
> acceptable, but without any measurable and identifiable criteria we
> are left with a very shaky base, on which to draw any conclusion
> would be unreliable if not outright wrong.
> More importantly as nor the lighting conditions, nor the subject
> matter nor the distance at which to take photographs, nor the film
> and development variables are fixed or at the least comparable, we
> are left drawing conclusions from evidence that is so diverse in all
> of its important parameters that any conclusion may be drawn and we
> may be certain that any conclusion is irrelevant. (as seven of Nine
> would note correctly).
> The flash or not to flash discussion is the same as to use a tripod
> or not when discussing "proper" Leica technique. The fact that many
> important Leica pictures have been taken without flash does not imply
> that ALL Leica pictures will have to be made without flash and that a
> good Leica picture must always be flash-less. Let us be a bit less
> prescriptive here: Leica pictures in my view are just pictures taken
> with a Leica camera whatever the flash or tripod. In another category
> we have good pictures. Simple algebra will tell you that we have two
> sets (one of pictures taken with a Leica camera and one of good
> pictures). The intersection of both sets gives you the subset of good
> Leica pictures. That is all there is to say about it.   Why are some
> people so stubborn in declaring that the subset of good Leica
> pictures has to be intersected with some other set of pictures taken
> without flash or tripod. Now Leica prides itself on the performance
> of its lenses wide open. So I will declare a new definition of good
> or correct Leica pictures: those pictures taken with a Leica camera
> and a Leica lens (of course!) at apertures wider than f/2.8. See how
> ridiculous this all is.
> Is the M4 better built than the M6. Again without any statistical and
> reliable evidence we cannot answer this question which is  anyhow
> rhetorical without a definition of "better built". Citing anonymous
> sources who all agree that the M4 is "better built", and not giving
> any hard evidence to support this claim is a technique as old as the
> classical Romans used to topple a senator from the senate: spread a
> rumor, give it some credentials by referring to important and
> reliable sources and then let the human imagination run its obvious
> and inevitable course.
> The topic of spare parts for the non TTL electronic circuits. As long
> as we do not know exactly what is the actual difference between the
> two sets of electronics, we  do not know for sure if a replacement or
> repair is possible. I do know that German law stipulates that for
> every product that is discontinued the manufacturer needs to hold
> spares to repair the product for a period of 10 years after
> discontinuing it. So I do assume that Leica has assured enough parts
> or at least repair strategies to support older camera models.
>
> Erwin