Leica S2: a comparison
Background
In the heyday of AgX photography camera manufacturers tried to design and develop products that offered distinctive features compared to the competition. The differences between cameras were meaningful as they were tailor made for a specific group of practitioners. The question what is the best camera did not make much sense. A Nikon F was more reliable than a Pentax Spotmatic and a Hasselblad more durable than a Pentacon Six. The choice between a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex depended on the needs of the photographer and his style of picture taking. Geoffrey Crawley of (old)-BJP fame refused to make comparisons between cameras as it was often comparing chalk and cheese. He preferred to do a lengthy analysis and provide the reader with a detailed profile of what a camera can do and what the user can expect from the camera. This approach is no longer practicable. Cameras are now often clones from each other and the commercial life of a camera is shorter than the period it takes to do a thorough investigation.
The current pre-occupation, one might even say obsession, with finding the best product is a delusion, but strongly promoted by magazines and internet forums. I am not aware of any workable definition of ‘best’. What we have is a ranking based on a small and often not representative range of measurements. The assumption is that a camera with a speed of 10 frames/sec is twice as good as a camera that only reaches 5 f/s and a camera that resolves 2739 lp/ph must be better than one that resolves ‘only’ 2496 lp/ph. The camera that gets 74 points is a loser compared to a camera that gets 74.5 points. At least this is what the magazines and websites want you to believe and accept.
Basically there is no best camera or a top five best ranking cameras. The truth of the matter is that there is a best selling list, but the best selling books are not the best of literature. There is also a ‘best for you’ camera, but that one does not need to be in any top ranking list.
Comparisons between camera features and performance are informative if it helps an interested photographer to make a well-informed and balanced decision. Comparisons should be informative in order to clarify choices and needs. Much noise has been made about the IR-sensitivity of the M8 or the high level of noise at high ISO values of the M9. Both facts are true in the sense that these characteristics can be demonstrated and with the right equipment can even be measured. But if you only work in black and white the IR sensitivity might be a benefit and when you never use high ISO values the noise is not an issue. If you value the rangefinder concept and exquisitely built products the M8 or M9 might be best for you and then the ranking on some list is irrelevant.
I made comparison pictures with the S2 and 70mm and 180mm lenses next to the Sony A900 with Zeiss 1.8/135mm, with Nikon D3X with new 1.4/50mm and with M9 with 1.4/50mm. The apertures used were f/4 for the telelenses and f/2.8 for the standard lenses. All images are made with manual focusing to get optimal quality and not introduce AF differences.
The scale of the pictures is always 1:1 and the size therefore different.
The pixel dimensions are
M9: 5212 x 3468; Nikon and Sony: 6048 x 4032; S2: 7512 x 4992.
All pictures developed as is in Lightroom 3 with standard settings for every file. RAW files as input and JPG as output for web placement.
It is evident that proficient pixel-masters can produce better images in some cases, but the basic rule for meaningful comparisons is to change as less variables as can be done to focus on the core parameters.
Moire
with the exception of the M9, moire is not an issue. It is strange that both Leica cameras differ that much. The basic sensor technology is the same and the sensor information is transferred directly to the DNG files. The smaller pixel pitch (6 to 6.8mu) might be one explanation, but more research is needed. I am not bothered by the phenomenon in the M9. But if impeccable image quality in fashion and product photography is needed, the S2 is the better choice.
Below A900
Below D3X
Below S2
Below M9
Chromatic aberrations.
The primary cause of the purple fringes is the under-corrected longitudinal chromatic aberration which produces a central (in-focus) bright core of yellowish color and a purplish (out-of-focus) halo due to the red and blue rays.
In this case the M9 has no fringing, the S2 a very light presence and the Sony and Nikon exhibit the most fringing. It is sometimes asserted that purple fringing is a property of out-of-focus or oblique imagery. These examples show that even with accurately focused plane imagery purple fringing can occur.
Below A900
Below D3X
Below S2
Below M9
Noise at ISO1250
The Nikon shows the least amount of noise, closely followed by the A900 and at some distance the S2 while the M9 is not a contender in this class. The topic of noise is one of the most intensely talked about. The classical linkage between speed and grain applies also to sensors. The noise can be reduced but at the expense of sharpness. The discussion is not that noise exists, but when it becomes objectionable or more positively framed when it becomes interesting in an artistic sense.
Below A900
Below D3X
Below S2
Below A900
Below D3X
Below S2
Definition
The highest definition and the cleanest image is being provided by the S2, followed by D3X and A900 and the M9.
What we see here is the classical rule that negative size matters. The annex to this rule is that size differences follow the law of diminishing returns.
The jump from 24 Mp to 40 Mp is numerically high (a +50% increase), but qualitatively the image quality does not increase by that same percentage. What matters however is the fact that the S2 delivers the goods without any postprocessing and so reduces the time the photographer or his assistant needs to operate the computer which is a valuable gain in productive time. And if you are following the AgX approach that taking pictures should cover 70% of the time spent on photographic activities, the S2 will support this attitude.
Below A900
Below D3X
Below S2
Below M9
Below A900 ISO 160
Below D3X ISO160
Below S2 ISO 160
Below M9 ISO 160
If you look critically at the pictures made with the M9 and D3X (disregarding for this moment the color differences) you will note that the Nikon images are crisper and tighter, but again the differences are not substantial and depending on what you want with your photography all four cameras can deliver.
All of these cameras support a different mode of photography and the performance should be seen in the appropriate frame of reference. One aspect is emerging as of overriding concern: the interdependence between software, lens quality and camera performance. In the case of the M9 and the S2 the quality of the lens is beyond reproach and in this case the software and the sensor do not influence the result. This is the current Leica design approach: sensor quality and lens quality are the defining parameters (as in the past lens and film emulsion). In the case of the A900 and D3x the interaction is less clear, but the influence of the sensor coupled to a lowpass filter and the intelligent in-camera processing can enhance the basic performance.
In the next part I will return to a more in-depth comparison between M9 and S2.