Leica S2: part 5: the Leica way of photography


Reviewing a camera system as important as the Leica S2 has to follow two different and complementary approaches. The first approach is the purely technical analysis where you try to find the performance limits of the camera. These limits delineate the expectations of the user and the best possibilities for its deployment and use. It is one the most common fallacies in the digital photographic community that the primary role of a test is to provide data for comparison with other products and for purposes of ranking. Comparisons and rankings have only a limited value. The fact that they are so prominent in modern photographic discourse is basically a sign of misguided number fetishism and superficial thinking. In most cases it does not provide the reader with meaningful information from which to derive intelligent decisions about the product under review. It is informative to know that lens A has a MTF value of 50/50 (% contrast/linepairs.per.mm) on axis and 20/20 in the corner and that there is a 2 stop vignetting wide open. The corresponding values for lens B might be 40/50 and 30/20 and 2.3 stops. These results might help you decide what lens is best for your style of photography.

Technical analysis and the problematic rankings


This is the real use of numbers and performance limits. It is always possible that you can create with some number juggling a merit value of 3.1 for lens A and 3.2 for lens B or the other way around. Is this ranking useful for the decision making. You may seriously doubt it! The basic problem lies in the fact that many measurements have only a very shaky relation to photographically important components of image quality. This relation is even more problematic in the digital world where we see two diverging trends. On the one hand we have very potent post processing software to tame the restless pixels we are looking at. The very powerful manipulations of the software do change and diminish the value of performance differences that are present at the start of the imaging chain. And on the other hand we have our screens where we can enlarge individual pixels to unrealistic sizes to see all kinds of aberrations that have no practical value. It might be a sobering thought that in AgX days the study of the grain under the microscope was considered as a useless exercise for scientists-turned-photographers because of the extreme magnifications. Under the microscope you can look at grain sizes with 100 times enlargement when in practice you hardly use 15 times. The same is true for pixel peeping: you look at pixel sizes that would require a print size of several meters wide, when you at best will print A3. One might argue that the computer screen is the preferred viewing medium for digitally constructed images. There is some truth in this, but one should also realize that a picture should be looked at with the size and from the perspective that the maker intended. In AgX days no one would have looked at grain clumps as a substitute for the image or as a relevant measurement for performance.

Expectations and performance limits

The second approach will register the behavior and the performance of the camera in practical use. This is a subject bristling with pitfalls. It is a necessary complement to the technical analysis. Technical performance tests cannot cover all conditions that will occur in practical shooting situations. Even today, after nine months of daily experience with the M9 I do detect new and additional facts. One must realize however that practical picture taking can range from a sublime lucky shot over unimpressive middle-of-the-road images to plain mediocre pictures. There is a grave responsibility in this area for a reviewer. If you only present the best shots you will increase the expectations for the camera/lens system and users might be disappointed when they do not equal the achievement in normal use. The other approach is to use the average results, but then you will definitely harm the standing and prestige of the camera. It is here that the comparison with the technical performance tests is really advantageous. The technical tests show you what is the maximal attainable quality. The practical tests can show you where you stand with your expertise. Any prospective user of a camera/lens system should be aware that the maximum is not the usual. And you need to define for yourself what the performance level is that makes you or your customers happy.

Owning a car with a maximum speed of 200 km/h, does not imply that you have to race at that speed whenever possible. You find a speed where you feel comfortable and fits the traffic conditions. Most public examples of S2 images are shot by fashion photographers who customary use tripod, flash, small apertures and medium distances. The strong points of the S2: easy handling for handheld shooting, weatherproof design, excellent optical quality at wide apertures and close distances are not covered by this fashion-style imagery. This approach might be necessary for Leica to obtain a firm footing in the professional market, but it neglects the basic claim of Leica for the S2 as a revolutionary new format camera reminiscent of the introduction of the original Leica I that made the 35mm format fashionable. The fashion photographer’s overriding concern is to get the best shots for the customer and to have a reliable system that delivers the required pictures with great certainty. A second chance is often not possible and bad results will certainly destroy the reputation. The Leica S2 is an easy to use reliable camera that delivers very predicable results.
These are important aspects for a fashion or product photographer and in general a bonus for any user.
The important point is to have a camera system that brings the results you want in a stress-free and fuss-free manner. It is absolutely irrelevant where the camera stands in the picking order of the photographic magazines or websites.

S2 and M9: different but with Leica DNA


The results of the technical tests show that the M9 is very close to the D3x and the S2 is ahead of the D3x. As I noted above, performance comparisons should always take into consideration the bandwidth of performance and the additional tolerance range that is inherent in every measurement and comparison. Test results need to be qualified with the famous 5 to 10% of tolerance that is caused by production tolerances in combination with the variations in lab equipment and human errors. It is really a pity that no serious magazine or website - I know of - does acknowledge this inevitable variation in results and cautions the reader to interprete the presented results with this bandwidth in mind. Much needless bickering and railing against others could be evaded if we accept that results are not accurate to two or more decimal places.

Against this background I used the S2 and M9 in a more informal manner to find differences in use and similarities that underscore the famous Leica way of taking pictures.
The two Leica systems represent two totally different design philosophies. The M9 starts with the minimum size of the camera and therefore the physical limits of the optical system are a given constraint. The maximum performance of the M9 lenses is determined by the size. If size is no problem you can design a super lens (see the gigantic lithography lens systems), but if you have physical restrictions a compromise is necessary. The art and science of Leica M lens design is the balance of size with maximum image quality. The forte of the M-system is the compactness of camera and lenses in combination with the exquisite performance that is so good that it can challenge much bigger systems.

The S2 design started from a different premisse: establish the desired performance and let the size expand to fit the requirements. The S2 lenses are rather big and the camera size has to match. The performance in lab conditions is without doubt a quantum leap ahead of the M lenses al be it at lower maximum apertures. If you switch from M9 to S2 or the other way around, the low weight and compact size of the M is immediately evident. The basic feeling that the M is a discreet and effective extension of the eye of the photographer settles in your mind. You are part of the scene and its developments. The S2 in contrast is a big camera, not as big or intimidating as the D3x, but still a fistful of finely shaped metal. Looking through the finder will evoke reminiscences of the Leicaflex and find similarities with the M rangefinder. The S2 has a central AF patch which has the same functional limits as the M rangefinder. You intuitively focus on the main subject of interest and neglect the overall composition. But you can use the total screen area for focus confirmation and that is how the later Leicaflex screen worked. The S2 screen is very bright, clean and large and literally invites you to compose your picture. But you lack the intimate rapport to the scene and subject. The classical functional distinction between a medium format reflex camera and a small format rangefinder camera did not disappear when both systems went digital and more automatic. The S2 relates to the M9 as Richard Avedon to Robert Frank. The S2 design and handling have nothing in common with most medium format cameras, film-loading or solid state. The S2 is the first medium format camera with the ease of handling of a compact rangefinder. Switching between both systems is seamless and you hardly need an adjustment process. A small regrouping of the hands and fingers and you are already familiar with the operational functionality of the camera. The S2 delivers the impeccable technical qualities of the Avedon-style of photography and this quality is even available when you use the lens at maximum aperture for razor thin depth of field and sharply defined focus. The uniqueness of the S2 is not the performance margin (as I said in my report there are other cameras that deliver comparable quality), but the marriage of the rangefinder approach (close distance, wide aperture, selective focus, fast operation) with medium format image quality and a new paradigm for lens design in this format. An additional bonus for many photographers is the excellent image quality out-of-the-box. If you wish there is no need for elaborate postprocessing and this is part of the timeless Leica approach: the quality should be fixed at the negative stage.

All the pictures below are original DNG files without any manipulation, except the black&white conversion with Nik Efex in Lightroom 3.
The images presented here illustrate the leitmotiv of this article: performance in itself is not the most important argument for the choice of a camera system. The performance should match the required image quality that the photographer needs and should fit his/her expectations.
The two pictures below show a very small section of the full image size.
M9 image


S2 image



S2 full image


They are an indication of the performance potential of the S2 and M9. This juxtaposition might seem to be unfair for the S2 image. The portrait taken with the M9 was taken with the 75mm lens and the portait taken with the S2 used the 70mm at the same distance. As you can see, the detail definition and crispness of the S2 image is higher than in the M9 picture. The quality potential of the S2 is evidently very high and this is important for the type of assignment that the S2 will have to handle. The comparison also underscores the claim made by Leica that the S2 lenses represent a new level of performance in the medium format world. The image below is a section of a portrait that honors the differences in sensor size.


There are two sides to every question and one should ask whether the performance of the M9 matches the quality aspirations one does cherish. The picture below shows a section of the DNG file taken with the M9 and the SX-M 50mm ASPH. This performance satisfies me and I can always move closer and/or use a 75mm or 90mm lens if I need more. See the examples above.

Upshot


The whole idea of a simple merit figure with a clearcut performance profile is a proposition too naïve to be acceptable. The photographic content and the photographic image quality are connected by a very complex relationship. Knowledge of the technical possibilities and limits of a camera system can contribute to a better understanding of this relationship, but in the end the photographer makes the decision based on what he/she wants to achieve.
M9 full image

M9 selection



As a closing remark I may recall that the two designers that made modern photography possible, the Barnack/Berek combination, never looked at the rule of the maximum, but always had a different ideal in mind. They asked themselves the sensible question what is needed to allow photographers to explore a new visual world and created a compact full metal camera that could be firmly and conveniently held before the eye with a lens that had enough depth of field to allow for zone focusing and made possible the art of the snapshot. Berek himself noted in the Leica Brevier that he specifically had not opted for the maximum as this would have restricted the use of the camera. It would have been easy to design an f/2 lens for the Leica I (an f/2 design was no rocket science even in those days), but the thick emulsion layers of the film would have produced unpleasant defocus effects.
The M9 and the S2 are the two professional systems in the Leica catalogue. The M9 is in its ninth edition and has a long heritage where the S2 is in edition one and has a bright future. We do not know what the S in its ninth edition will be, but we can be sure of one thing: the speed of technological innovation is much higher than in the previous decades when the M evolved from Number Three to Number Nine.