Recently test results of the Leica M9 from DxO created some consternation among M9 owners and possibly prospective owners. The DxOMark review is a free service from the DxO software company and compares/ranks many digital cameras on a selected number of parameters. The Leica M9 occupies the 23rd slot in the overall ranking and the accompanying remarks are interpreted as a cold shower for M9 owners. The review notes that the performance is just as good as what can be expected from a four year old Canon 5D and hardly better than the previous dCRF from Leica, the M8. The M9 is evaluated on the basis of three parameters, color depth, dynamic range and high ISO values. The conclusion is that the M9 is hardly improved in these areas, compared to the M8 and not much better than the older Canon 5D. Incidentally this verdict mirrors almost exactly my findings in my M9 report and I got heavily criticized from several persons, who in their initial euphoria could not believe that the M9 was not the best digital camera in the world and/or a major improvement on the M8. The three parameters, selected by DxO do indeed represent the major weak points of the M9: noise is high at speeds above ISO 640, dynamic range is restricted and color fidelity is also improvable.
The main point is not that the DxO review is correct and that on the basis of this very limited yardstick the M9 lands on place 23. If you look for Olympic records, this is not a nice slot to be in.
I got several emails by alarmed owners of the M9 who worried that they had bought an inferior product and I did read on some internet forums that some owners even consider selling the M9 because of this ranking.
I am amazed at the suggestive power of the number games being played in our time. Rankings (the top five), maximum values (the highest number of Lp/ih), recommendations (x people recommended this product) have obviously replaced personal judgment and a rational assessment of the required tools. This state of affairs may lead to the conclusion that pride of ownership is nowadays more important than pride of results.
The ultimate question is simply this: are you happy with the results and does the instrument support you in getting the image quality you are looking for. There is this remarkable psychological process that persons who are happy with their camera get immediately disappointed with this same product as soon as there is some information, perceived as negative about that product. Any product as complex as a camera (digital or film-loading), is a mix of advantages and disadvantages. As soon as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, required for a certain goal, the product is not optimal. In AgX days we knew that a high ISO speed implied a bigger grain and very high resolution implied a narrow dynamic range. Most iconic Leica images were shot with ISO400 or lower and the masters of the craft did not need ISO 12800 to get impressive pictures in low light situations. If I need a compact camera the Nikon D3x is a no-brainer, if I want or need a maximum of features and system depth, the M9 is not the best choice. The results of the DxOMark review are probably correct and competently researched, but they represent only a small fraction of the information that is really needed for a meaningful assessment. The Leica M9 delivers outstandingly good definition and clarity of fine detail up to ISO400, has an accurate rangefinder mechanism, is compact and easy/intuitively to use, has the finest range of lenses in the world, hardly needs postprocessing and supports a style of photography that merges the best of AgX and digital capture technologies. All these aspects are not referred to in the DxO ranking (they are honest enough to note this restriction) and therefore the ranking is OK, but not relevant for the Leica owner who actually uses his camera and this applies to the M8 too! For decades, photographers made spectacular pictures with films at a speed of at most ISO 640, worked with dynamic ranges below five stops and had to choose from more than twenty different film types to select the one with the required color reproduction. I do not want to return to those days, but it is legitimate to ask the question why it is that with modern sophisticated equipment we cannot capture the real world as it is and really need ISO 6400 and a dynamic range of 13 stops to make meaningful pictures. Has reality changed that much or is it that consumers have been brainwashed to demand exactly that what the manufacturers have in stock. Some time ago, I could compare the practical results of two lenses, the old but famous Nikkor 2.5/105 and a very modern new lens with a much more sophisticated design. The MTF curves gave the new lens a clear advantage, but in the practical results with a high quality camera, the D3x, the differences were so small as to be negligible, even wide open! Here again we see that a blind adherence to graphs and numbers and rankings is not the best way to assess the practical performance of camera and lenses. You need to know when and where the quantitative results are relevant for the results you want to get. That one such listing can cause so much consternation is a sign of the times. A recent book by a Dutch and American professor, titled: In praise of doubt, looks at the positive aspects of doubt. It is almost imperative in this world to search for certainty and assurance. Confronted with hundreds of choices we need to be assured that our choice is the best possible one. This is the raison d'etre of many photographic magazines who rank everything. If camera A has a score of 76.6% and camera B has only 76.3% we are assured that we made the best choice if we own or buy camera A. I am afraid that we are being deluded by banal magic tricks we conveniently want to neglect.