[Leica] Was Digilux 2 Review, Now Frank Van Riper Speaks

[GREG LORENZO <gregj.lorenzo@shaw.ca>]

I'm resending this as my original seems to have not made it to the List.

Mr. Van Riper speaks about his Digilux 2 Review piece in the Washington Post and as to whether he actually "uses" equipment before Reviewing it.


- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From  FVanriper@aol.com 
Date  Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:20:43 -0500 (EST) 
To  gregj.lorenzo@shaw.ca 
Subject  Re: Controversy About your Recent Washington Post Digilux 2 Review? 



- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Greg:
    I do not know how anyone with walking around sense can believe that I did not actually have in my hands and personally use the Digilux 2 when I wrote my review.
    In fact, I still have the damn thing and will be getting it back to Leica's NYC PR firm asap.
    How anyone could write a review of any camera--much less one so heavily laden as the Digilux 2--without actually and personally using it is beyond me.
    Granted, it IS a brand new and very hot camera and many reviewers are scrambling to get one for review. I have been doing my column for a very long time and have very good contacts at Leica. Perhaps the LUG respondent could not believe I got one so fast.
    But I sure as hell am not going sacrifice more than a dozen years of credibility by doing a review of any camera without having seen it and run it through its paces.
    I think someone in the Leica User's Group needs to get a life--assuming you have quoted him or her correctly.
      Feel free to post this wherever you like. And if anyone else doubts me, let them contact me directly. But they better have an asbestos computer screen.
    Best regards and thanks for the note,
     Frank Van Riper
    photography columnist
    The Washington Post
    www.CameraWorks.com
    www.GVRphoto.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:55 am
Subject: RE: RE: [Leica] And Now for Something Completely Different

> Greg - I realize that you and I are unlikely to ever agree on 
> anything,including whether or not the sun comes up in the morning. 
> But that said,
> don't you see that everyone of the comments you quote is telling 
> us what
> the features are; telling us how the camera feels and handles - 
> NOT how
> it performs.
> 
> ** "Put simply, the Digilux 2 is a camera that just HANDLES like the
> real thing."
> 
> ** "it APPEARS as if Germany has had a major input as to the way the
> camera actually LOOKS and FEELS."
> 
> ** "Hell, there's even a round shutter speed dial that you twirl with
> your fingers - my kind of "digital" control - as well as a manual
> focusing ring that feels as if it were placed on the lens 
> deliberately,and not as some post-production afterthought." - 
> Again, this is about
> LOOK and FEEL - not performance.
> 
> ** "As for the lens, it's Leica glass, which should be all that I need
> to say. A 28-90 mm (35mm equivalent) Vario Summicron zoom that is 
> plentyfast at f.2-2.4. And sharp, too - aspherical glass with 13 
> elements in
> 10 groups." That tells us NOTHING about how well this lens PERFORMS.
> After all, Leica's ASPH M lenses are world-class, and Leica has said
> repeatedly that they wouldn't PERFORM properly on a digital M. So the
> fact that a lens is made by Leica and is ASPH doesn't tell us that 
> thiscamera produces results that are better than those of cameras 
> at half
> the price, or are even any good. (I'm sure the results are fine, 
> but Van
> Ripper hasn't told me that they are.) 
> 
> ** "Turn the focusing ring while peering through the viewfinder 
> and the
> center part of your image suddenly will enlarge so that you can 
> focus a
> whole lot more precisely." Okay - but does it produce sharp, in focus
> RESULTS?
> 
> ** "The pop-up flash, for example, is a very discreet thing that is
> slightly elevated to lessen red eye. But it also can be clicked 
> into a
> 45-degree angle (unheard of on almost every other digicam of its kind)
> to render far more natural-looking flash photographs." Did he TRY it?
> 
> ** "Here, you actually can adjust white balance within the chosen 
> menu,via a series of click stops that show real-time changes in the
> viewfinder or LCD." And did he TRY it to be able to tell if what 
> he sees
> on that tiny screen translates acurately to printed results?
> 
> Etc. Etc.
> 
> Let's be perfectly honest - everything he tells us could have come
> straight from a Leica publication.
> 
> I'm not saying these features don't sound great; I'm saying that 
> this is
> a report on features, not on how those features produce photos.
> 
> I could, for instance, write about the Olympus E1 (which I was 
> given by
> Olympus ;-) ) and tell you, among other things, that it has a 
> feature to
> boost the iso to 1600 and 3200. That would not tell you that the 
> isos of
> 1600 and 3200 are quite noisy, which is something that a review of the
> actual functioning of the camera should definitely include, correct?
> 
> I'm sure that some will view the DigiII as the greatest Leica 
> since the
> M3. Wonderful. All I'm saying is that this piece by Van Ripper doesn't
> tell anyone who is already in love with the idea of this camera, 
> and who
> has already read the various Leica announcements, a damn thing they
> don't already know.
> 
> B. D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of GREG
> LORENZO
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:10 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: RE: [Leica] And Now for Something Completely Different
> 
> 
> B. D. Colen writes in part:
> 
> > Actually, I read this "review" yesterday, and was about to post
> > it. But
> > then I realized that there is not one word about RESULTS - in fact,
> > there is no real indication that Van Ripper actually USED the 
> camera,> just that he handled one. But there is NOTHING in this 
> review to
> indicate 
> > that Van Ripper actually USED the camera and has images from it that
> he can
> > compare to those from any other camera. 
> 
> Your not serious I hope? Perhaps you missed all of the following 
> which I
> quote from his article:
> 
> 
> and
> 
> "But in the case of the Digilux 2, it appears as if Germany has 
> had a
> major input as to the way the camera actually looks and feels."
> 
> and
> 
> "Put simply, the Digilux 2 is a camera that just handles like the real
> thing."
> 
> and
> 
> "One of the first I noted - and which took me back a whole lot of 
> yearsto the days of split image rangefinder focusing in oldtime 
> SLR's - was
> the Leica's novel system for manual focusing. Turn the focusing ring
> while peering through the viewfinder and the center part of your image
> suddenly will enlarge so that you can focus a whole lot more 
> precisely.""As for the lens, it's Leica glass, which should be all 
> that I need to
> say. A 28-90 mm (35mm equivalent) Vario Summicron zoom that is plenty
> fast at f.2-2.4. And sharp, too - aspherical glass with 13 
> elements in
> 10 groups."
> and
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> "The pop-up flash, for example, is a very discreet thing that is
> slightly elevated to lessen red eye. But it also can be clicked 
> into a
> 45-degree angle (unheard of on almost every other digicam of its kind)
> to render far more natural-looking flash photographs." 
> 
> and
> 
> "Here, you actually can adjust white balance within the chosen 
> menu, via
> a series of click stops that show real-time changes in the 
> viewfinder or
> LCD."
> 
> and 
> 
> "There is a "burst" shooting mode that I made out to be about 3-4 
> framesper second."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-
> users/unsub.html
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-
> users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html