Re: [Leica] Mr Put's comments

[Stephen Gandy <leicanikon@earthlink.net>]

Erwin,

you started Mike's Gauntlet challenge by disagreeing with him in a long
treatise, essentially saying that Leica lens superiority could easily be
seen.  When asked to back up your statement by demonstrating it, where it
counts on the print, all you can come up with is a long stream of excuses.
Judging from your response, it does not seem you have much confidence the
knowledge your vaunted lens testing has given you.

If Mike says he can't tell the difference, an experienced editor of a major
photo magazine, I certainly don't expect I will be able to tell the
difference either.    However you are not just another Leica user, you are,
as has been pointed out  numerous times on the LUG, "the world's greatest
authority on Leica lenses."    That being the case, it it asking too much
for you to correctly pick out the Leica prints and back up your own
statements?  I think not.

Erwin Puts wrote:

> Mr Gandy made some interesting twists of reasoning that makes it
> required reading for any politician  who would like to run for
> president.
>
> Mr Gandy states as a personal inference from my writings:" IF you
> want accurate test results to see what YOUR lenses will do, you have
> to test them yourself."

this statement is not from your writings, but from my site.  It has been
there about 3 years now.  Your actions, not your words, back it up.

>
> I did not claim this and none of my remarks can be used to support
> this claim. I did say: testing should be done under identical
> circumstances and results should be compared according to objectified
> evaluation criteria beforehand. Mr Gandy' s logic that accuracy is
> secured when you do your own testing is a fine example of implied
> self justification.

No Erwin, your interpretation is self justification.  While your evaluate
the lens you tested, they do not evaluate the lens you did not test -- the
one in someone's camera bag or on the shelf for sale.  That is not to say
published lens test are not useful to generally talk about a len's
ability.   However if a Leica user want an  ACCURATE test of the lens they
are using, they need to test THEIR  OWN lens, not slavishly buy and sell
lenses based upon results from someone else's lens and lens tests.

>
>
> Mr Gandy also noted: "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."
>
> Glad to support your business Stephen. And free of charge too!

I do appreciate your tests for just this reason, and so do a lot of other
dealers, though most would not admit it.

>
>
> Mr Gandy notes too: " 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."
>
> How true, Stephen. Well in fact I am always encouraging people to
> draw their own conclusions. If you do not like my tests, be my guest.

I do like your tests, they are a great sales tools.  I also believe everyone
should test their own lenses if they want accurate results.

>
>
> Mr Gandy notes : "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."
>
> My memory is quite good, thank you for your interest,  but I
> sometimes choose to ignore some  statements to comment upon. But you
> make an interesting addition: "better built"  for you at least
> implies: more parts and less flare under some conditions. We can use
> this as a working hypothesis for the quality issue. Much obliged to
> you for  this clarification.
>

 To clarify,  how can a M6 rangefinder which does not in all conditions
function as well as  the M4 rangefinder, be a superior and better built
product ?  "Better built" in this context not only refers to precision,
materials and craftsmanship, but to function as well.  What is more
important in a rangefinder camera than its rangefinder ?    Of course I also
believe the fit and finish of the M4  is superior, but the  function of the
rangefinder is more easily discussed.

As always Mr. Puts, a pleasure.

Stephen Gandy