It is no longer customary in the car industry to quote top speeds of the car models as a discerning criterium, nor is it fashionable to measure the maximum corner speed or the acceleration time from zero to 60 miles/hour. Now you quote braking distance, emission levels and safety precautions. Emission levels are directly related to fuel consumption and with one measure you have two indications. This shift from an obsession with masculine values (maximum horsepower, maximum speed, maximum acceleration) to more neutral or, dare I mention it!, feminine characteristics (comfort, safety, nature) did happen decades ago. It is a sane response to the fact that mobility is now interpreted as an integral element of western culture. The car is, with a few exceptions, no longer a boy’s toy and cars are rated differently than let us say motorcycles.
In the photographic world this shift has not yet occurred. Even when photography is an integral part of our visual culture and a major force in shaping our views and opinions of world events, most reviewers of photographic equipment still adopt the boy’s toy approach. The maximum number of pixels, the maximum number of lines per image height, the maximum contrast, the maximum speed of a lens, the maximum zoom range, the maximum shrinking size of a camera, the maximum number of features - the list is endless - define the stature and worth of a camera. Printed magazines and virtual websites are focussed on proving that camera A is the best of the pack. And if you happen to be number five on a ranking, it is best to commit suicide. This attitude creates a bandwagon effect and does distract from the essential role of a review which is to sketch the personality of a product and outline its virtues and best use. Socrates was an irritating person because he doubted everything and challenged anybody. Questioning helps to find the truth, but is also quite nerve-racking for authorities. The Greek rulers at last asked Socrates to keep his mouth or drink a poisoned cup. Some authorities in the digital camera world act like the Greek rulers: if you deviate from the established norm you are suspect, inept or not qualified to test digital cameras. One commentator even claims that if you state that the performance of the M9 is less than stellar, you are missing the mark when it comes to testing digital cameras. In other words: we want the M9 to be the best, this gives us a good feeling and anyone who spoils the game should leave the building.
It makes sense in this period of fast distribution of information in combination with information overload to follow the example of Socrates and start asking questions and start doubting established opinions.
Socrates would have asked what you mean by ‘stellar’, why you think that a camera must perform like ‘stellar’ and why you assume that anyone who differs in this opinion is unqualified and what proof you have for your several assertions. But he would also ask why you are upset if your camera system is criticized and why you feel inclined to believe what others say and not follow your own instinct or evaluation. He would hardly be interested in your answer, he was too convinced of his own opinions, but the value of his approach is to question the obvious and superficial until you find some valid anchor point.

In my reports about the M9 and the S2 I have said that both cameras are in the front rank of currently available high-performance cameras, that the lenses are outstandingly good, and that you do not need postprocessing software to get excellent results. This is basically the Leica philosophy: simplicity of use will enhance the performance as you do not need to divide your attention between photographing and handling the camera. Spending less time behind the computer implies having more time for honing your photography skills. It is evident that postprocessing software will and can manipulate the final image quality. Given this additional step of major but undefined manipulations, a clear conclusion is less easy to draw than in AgX technology where processing steps are simple and clearly defined in its effects.
The added value for the M9 and S2 in comparison with comparable products is the simplicity of handling, the accuracy of manual focusing and the excellence of the optics at wider apertures and closer distances. The S2 lenses have these attributes form the design stage. Now the M lenses are being upgraded in the same disciplines with the several high speed FLE designs. I may add that the choice of material and the exquisite mechanical finishing are the envy of the industry. But we should not fall into the emotional trap to believe (or force others to believe) that any Leica product delivers stellar performance at the limits of the technically feasible. And we should not let these emotions override our sober-minded assessment of the Leica products. To introduce Socrates again, he woud ask here why people are so emotional about Leica, positive as well as negative. The current Leica cameras (film-loading and solid state) can deliver results that are second to none, but this is one of the major components of the Leica DNA. The second goal of the Leica engineers in designing cameras and lenses is to provide the user with a high precision photographic system accurately aligned along the important photographic vectors of focusing, optical performance, and image composition. No Leica camera/lens combination can produce the exquisite detail that a 8x10 inch large format negative can capture. Does this fact make the Leica system a second-tier product? Capture format and physical size are the most important parameters for the determination of the technical and visual capabilities of the camera systems. The sensor of the S2 has a 1.3 times advantage over the sensor of the M9, but the body and lens size is several magnitudes bigger. The image quality on the other hand is not twice as good. Following this reasoning the M9 could be seen as even better than the S2 when we base our judgement on the size equation. These are the games people are playing. Put a Leica M lens on one the current ILC (interchangeable lens compact) bodies, previously known as EVIL bodies an you can start a life long discussion which combination delivers best results, M or ICL or EVIL. The better approach would be to ask which system gives you the most satisfaction and the results you like. Most photographers accept that the 8x10 inch view camera provides unsurpassed performance, but the same persons say that they will never use one because they do not need the results and the camera is too unwieldy for most tasks. But this last argument is precisely why some photographers use the 8x10 inch camera. It forces you to think photography and not to consume it.

There is a certain fascination in exploring limits. And it it is most useful to establish limits because then we know where the impossible begins. Finding limits has more value than just satisfying scientific curiosity. It clearly sets borders and can correct false expectations. Some famous examples are the claims by the Gigabit people that their emulsion could resolve 1000 linepairs/mm and the assertion by the previous Zeiss marketing department that their lenses could resolve 400+ lp/mm. But a limit does not imply that anything below this limit is per definition less worthwhile. A sensible approach is to use the test-result as a benchmark for your own expectations and qualifications. After a critical assessment of your own goals and motives (you may ask Socrates for questioning your starting points) you are in a good position to make a sensible decision, independent of the band-waggon effects of the internet forums and websites.

There are so many unquestioned statements in the leica world (on the internet and in printed publications) that it would take a book to address them.
Some recent ones:
The Summilux-M 1.4/35 asph is known to have a focus difference. Of course there will be someone somewhere who will declare that the previous version, the 1.4/35 aspherical has no focus shift. This is not true, but I am afraid that this rumor will give enough unrest. I wonder why people find it necessary to distribute this nonsense.
In a report in LFI about the M8 you can read that the 135mm focal length is not supported on the M8 because the accuracy of the 0.68 rangefinder is not high enough for reliable focusing. (truth is that the 0.68 magnification makes the rangefinder framelines for the 135mm too inaccurate, even on the 0.85 rangefinder the framelines are indicative rather than precise). This statement has been uncritically copied in many places. On the M9 with the same rangefinder as on the M8 the 135mm lens can be used. A focus test with my M8.2 and M9 indicated that both cameras provide accurate focus with the same Apo-Telyt-M 135mm. I used the 1.25x magnifier on the 0.68 finder. Without this magnifier the focus is less reliable on BOTH cameras. In fact the magnifier is needed on the 0.68 finder in all cases where you use the wide aperture lenses from 35mm to 90mm and need critical focusing. Even the lenses from 21mm to 28mm will benefit in focus accuracy when employing the magnifier.
A well known Leica user claims that he finds less focus shift with Leica lenses with brass mounts than with aluminum mounts. Not true: the optical cell of both types (black anodized and silver chrome) is identical. The only difference in both types is the choice of material for the surface parts of the lens.