Re: [Leica] Gandy, Puts, Objectivity, etc.

["Douglas Cooper" <douglas@metaversalstudios.com>]

Mr. Gandy wrote:

>I do find it odd that I can't remember Erwin ever siding with
>anything but a  viewpoint that would just happen to support the sales of
new
>Leica product (variations of its the newest, its the best),   while at the
same
>time claiming he is objective.   hmmm.

This is most obvious when he ends up contradicting himself in the conclusion
to a test which clearly shows another product superior to the Leica
equivalent.  His detailed review of the the Ricoh 50/2.8 certainly point to
that lens's superiority to the Elmar:  "Its optimum performance at f/2,8 is
simply better than the Elmar-M 2.8/50 and even at its worst setting would
kill the older version of the Elmar."  His review of the Skoper 25/4 also
suggests its superiority to the Elmarit.  *Then,* in the final paragraphs,
we see this:

"The excellent performance of the Ricoh and Skopar are partly the result of
the modest aperture. The higher aberration content will not be visibly
buried as this will be among other things in the depth of field.

"The generally weaker performance in the field is also a characteristic that
distinguishes these lenses from the Leica lenses."



Excuse me?  The "objective" test had *nothing whatsoever* to do with
performance in the field.  In other words, if the rigorous scientific
results go against Leica, we have to fall back on subjective judgments
(always) to decide that the Leica lens is in fact superior.

I no longer take these reviews at face value.  I was never particularly
interested in the mere numbers to begin with, but if I were, I still would
have a hard time accepting these reviews as objective.  Yes, new Leica
equipment is wonderful -- we all agree on this -- but just occasionally it's
a tad less wonderful than the competition; or -- and we all *should* agree
on this -- a tad less wonderful than earlier versions of the same equipment.


Douglas Cooper