Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Many other purchases I have regretted but not buying Leica gear. Actually I have decided many times that from then on I buy only Leica equipment - but then I have bought some non-Leica item, and sometimes felt sorry afterwards. With new or good condition Leica gear you know what you´ll get. The only Leica purchase I have regretted was when I bought an old - very old - 50 mm Summicron which turned out to be full of fungus. All the best! Raimo photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Dan S <dstate1@hotmail.com> Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Päivä: 27. elokuuta 2000 17:23 Aihe: Re: [Leica] Value of test reports/Psychology of Leica owners >About every 2 months or so the LUG get's into this same, painful discussion. > The real reason so many in the group don't believe in technical testing is >that these tests don't give Leica the kind of overwhelming advantages that >those money bled buyers felt they paid for. Yes, they are better. But >these folks want a full slam dunk, which is just not going to happen...ever. > >Few groups on earth have more trouble with buyers remorse than Leica owners, >with the possible exception of Rolls Royce drivers. We are a group of >people who achieved our adolescent day-dreams too soon. Once we have the >thing we desired we spend the rest of our lives wondering why it did not >bring instant and permanent gratification to our life. Are we trying to >convince others of the logic of a $2000.00 35mm lens, or ourselves. > > >A hint to "test bashers" to make your lives easier. Use test information as >a guidepost in making your own buying decisions, but don't expect it to >"justify" an expense, monetary or emotional. >A Leica or any other luxury purchase is as much emotion as logic. Lets >respect both sides. > >Best wishes >Dan States >Madison WI > > >Erwin Puts wrote: > >> >>Recently we could read on this list a remark about the value of the >>measurement of characteristics of a lens that are related to image quality. >>In fact a reappearance of Mr. Johnston's well-known view about lens >>testing, >>it is stated that any objective lens test (that is a test that tries to >>establish numerical values on a set of parameters) can only capture those >>characteristics of optical performance that are irrelevant or unimportant >>for the true appreciation of a lens' performance by an artistically or >>expressively trained photographer's eye. Those aspects of a lens that >>delight or excite the working photographer in viewing his/her results in >>print or on screen, cannot be measured or even discussed objectively. >>As we are entering the domain of belief or even religion here, it is futile >>to try to argue against this view. You can not discuss in any meaningful >>way >>unless you try to follow the same set of rules or basic premises. >>The more intriguing question is why do some persons believe that >>objectivity >>in lens testing is irrelevant or counterproductive. The obvious fact that >>all manufacturers use MTF tests and all other kinds of measurements to >>create and produce the lenses with characteristics that some only wish to >>discuss in personalised statements is a logical contradiction. But so be >>it. >>Why negate the value of objectivity in lens testing and evaluation? One >>very >>obvious reason is a commercial one. Quite recently I was emailed by a >>customer in an USA store who asked me this: the salesperson had for sale >>two >>Summilux lenses 1.4/35, one the aspherical and one the ASPH. The aspherical >>was twice as expensive as the ASPH, because the salesperson stated that the >>first (aspherical) version was much better optically than the current >>(ASPH) >>version. Now this is nonsense and that I told the buyer, who went for the >>ASPH version for half the price. If the salesperson had presented the buyer >>with objective test reports he would never have made this statement and so >>could not justify the difference in price. Yes, yes, the aspherical is a >>collectors item and because of scarcity may demand a higher price, but that >>is not what the salesperson told the customer who was obviously not >>interested in a collectible. >>Second reason why objective lens reports are not popular is the loss of fun >>factor. If we believe whatever report the discussion is closed. It is >>established that lens A is better than lens B. Period. So buy lens A if you >>need best quality and start taking pictures. No fun at all? But if we >>believe that a test can not give conclusive evidence we are in for a never >>ending discussion, which is enjoyable in itself. Then we can point out that >>PopPhoto notes that the 1.4/35 asph has best wide open performance of all >>lenses tested, that Modern however remarked that stopped down the asperical >>is better, that Viewfinder in an article did not find significant >>diferrences, but noted more coma in the far corners, that CdI gave 5 stars, >>but that a friend who is a professsioal photographer swears by the ASPH, >>but >>that a noted NatGeo-rapher had sold his as he was not content with the >>bo-ke >>and so on. Of course I am fantasising here, but the message is clear and >>recognisable. >>The discussion on this list re the quality and merits of the Minolta and >>Leitz designs is a proof. I am not going to jump into this discussion, I >>already overstretched, regrettably, my backbench postion by commenting on >>Dan's presentation of 4 comparative pictures. >>There has been a reference to a site which presents the results of several >>magazines of the same lenses. While it is helpful to note that test results >>stray widely, it does not answer the fundamental question: if we want to >>get >>reliable info based on measured results, which one to trust. >>There are so many stories here that are not true that I do not know where >>to >>start: >>The notion that you should need a statistically representative sample to >>make meaningful statements, is not realistic: first: a representative >>sample >>would comprise at least 20 items. Which magazine can afford this? And what >>manufacturer can give 20 lenses per magazine. As there are about 200 >>magazines in the world who need fair treatment, so the factory would have >>to deliver 4000 lenses. Assume the Leica 1.4/35 aspherical which has been >>produced 2000 times. The full production is not enough to deliver the >>sample >>to all magazines. And would magazines be happy with 20 lenses. Not all all! >>It takes me a few months to test one item!! And is it necessary? No, QC >>nowadays secures minimum standards. Is it true that a magazine gets >>specially prepared versions of a lens? Most unlikely. The magazines I work >>for get off the shelf boxes. My Leica test lenses are taken from the shelf >>by myself. Is it true that a magazine keeps testing a series of lenses till >>they find one that meets their standards? Nonsense. Try to work for a >>magazine and you will find out that this is impossible. You have a >>deadline: >>get a lens in week one, test it in week two, find in week three it is not >>OK, ask a new one (often if it is a new lens, only one is available!!!) and >>you get one three weeks later, you test it etc. Deadline passed. No review >>needed anymore as all other magazines have reports on the lens! >>Every magazine has its own procedure of testing and style of reporting. YOU >>CANNOT COMPARE THEM!!! Unless you know intimately and in great technical >>detail what they do and how they work. >>Magazines do not tell you or in such terminology that you do not understand >>what exactly they are doing. Take Photodo. MTF tests are fine. The crucial >>question at what distance they set the focal plane, when testing the lens >>is >>never answered. I asked them several times to specify this simple fact. >>They >>refuse. Without such a knowledge the results are most misleading. If you do >>not know about the basics of optical shop testing and the magazines are as >>evasive as the Russians about the sinking of the Kursk, you are in the >>desert. Compare this behaviour with the one at Zeiss or Leica where the >>people explain to the most minute detail what they evaluate, why they do >>it, >>what the results are, what interpretations they use, where the grey areas >>are, what the margins are and I must say I believe the manufacturers data >>more than the results in the magazines. >> >>Erwin >> > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com >