Large negative, compact size.

The quest for high quality pictures made with a small compact camera is as old as the construction of the Leica. In fact it is one of the reasons for its existence. Creating a favorable ratio between volume of camera and negative area was one of the goals of Barnack. It is still one of the USPs of the M9 that has a small size and volume compared to the dSLR cameras that possess the same sized sensor but are much bulkier and heavier.
Getting rid of the mirror box is one of the tactics that he new wave of mirrorless-interchangeable lens-compact cameras employ to approach that favorable ratio. With the exception of the m4/3 models, most newcomers in this segment use large sensors to try to deliver image quality of the state-of-the-art dSLR types.
There are basically two design types, one emulating a dSLR shape and profile and one copying the stylish compact models of yesterday, the Pen is the one to beat.
It is interesting to note that the public (and the press) associate the dSLR shape with professional photography and the other shape with amateur photography. The reader with a limited historical perspective may look at the mid-fifties of the previous century when the rangefinder shape and the box shape of Rolleiflex and Hasselblad were the flag bearers of professionalism.

Is the camera type (previously known as EVIL) an enduring phenomenon and can it replace the SLR type as the dominant tool for photographers who want high performance and easy portability? One may doubt it. The dSLR is rapidly integrating full video functionality in its concept and with the new wave of cinema lenses (Zeiss, Red One, Leica) there is much interest in the SLR as a tool for movie-making.

History has many examples of compact cameras with large sized negative areas that had instant success at first but due to inherent limitations did not become a longterm trend. The Rollei 35 springs to mind, but one the most interesting models is the Minolta TC-1. It had all features of the professional cameras of that time with AF, spotmeter, exposure automation and so on.

Below there is a construction drawing of that camera.



The designers of the TC-1 were focused to equip the camera with all necessary components for high quality imagery. The lens is a very sophisticated five element design with three aspherical surfaces and the MTF graph shows excellent performance that would be competitive even today.



The aperture mechanism is impressive: every aperture setting has its own dedicated panel with a perfectly circular shape.



For me the TC-1 is an outstanding example of a camera that is designed with the expert photographer in mind. The camera is loaded with sensible features that are really important for high performance photography in a miniaturized body shape.
The care for the construction and design of the viewfinder is exemplary and much more elaborate than the constructs that are now offered as optical viewfinders in most compact cameras.



The main message of this camera and this is the approach sadly missing in current designs is the focus on real photographic qualities to complement the big sized negative or capture area. The Minolta designers were reflecting on what the ambitious photographer really needs to accomplish his goal to create brilliant large format pictures.



A new edition of the Leica X1 could refocus on these aspects for sophisticated imagery. A large sensor in a small body does not suffice. One needs a vision on photography and its culture.

That is stuff for the next blog.

My new version of the Leica Lens Compendium is almost ready. The first introductory chapter can be downloaded free in the download area.
The book covers the history of the company from 1849 to 2010 and focuses on cameras from the Ur-Leica to the S2 and M9 and all lenses from the original Elmax to the most recent M lens. The focus is on the rangefinder lineage. Most books on the Leica discuss the product in isolation, but in reality the company operated in a wider environment of culture, politics, manufacturing technology and artistic developments. Without such a background the history cannot be appreciated and understood. The transition from film to digital is a major theme as is the difference in technique, culture and style of photography between these technologies.
The book will become available as a download version and as a printed book.
The download version will be password protected. The experience with a free download and a shareware option does not make me optimistic: the LLC has been downloaded more than 50.000 (!) times, but only 25 (!) people paid a contribution.
The printed version will be a one time only print run on subscription only. Details will be give later.
For now enjoy the reading and if you have comments or wishes, feel free to mail me.

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.

Current culture in photography is quite contradictory. On one level we have the dSLR users who mostly have a traditional background and are very focussed on technical matters. This is not a new phenomenon. In the AgX days there were hotly discussed topics like the choice of developer/film combinations, the proper use of the Zone System and of course what camera to buy and what lens to select. This techno-bias was coupled in most instances to a style of picture making that was - to say it politely - rather dull and repetitious. The best photographic quality (content wise) was produced by photographers who hardly were involved in the technicalities of the job.
On a second level we can observe a trend in picture taking that is very refreshing and bold and is being produced by a new generation of digital photographers who have no affiliation with classical photographic culture. Most interesting is the fact that they have no interest in technical matters. leaving the technical quality of the image to the in-camera software and processing. Being freed from the dead weight of technicalities that may hamper the spontaneous flow of creativity, they focus exclusively on emotion and its visual translation.
It seems that we - with exceptions of course - can do only one thing right: think and act technically or think and act creatively.

Technical topics come and go. First we had maximum resolution, then we got bokeh, then we had MTF graphs, then there was focus difference, now we have color fringing and pixel jockeying. I am sure I have missed a few topics that are hotly debated but the point I wish to make is clear: photographers are immersed in topics and discussions that have little practical relevance for the final result and have only a very limited effect on the photographic content or message. Even if we equate photography with detailed reproduction of a slice of reality and assume that in this domain the technical quality of a picture is of overriding importance, we have to admit that esthetic sensitivity is really required to produce interesting images.

A picture has visual and emotional impact only if we can look at the image at one glance without having our eyes to scan the image in broad strokes. This rule can be observed in any museum where paintings are being studied at a proper distance and you see visitors carefully locating themselves before a painting so that the image can be seen within the natural viewing angle of the eye.
The rule holds true for photographic pictures too. An A4 print can just be looked at at arm’s length or being projected on a computer screen with 17 inch diagonal. Bigger sizes (a computer or TV screen with 30 inches diagonal or a A3 print size) require a larger distance between picture and viewer. And when the distance is increased the ability of the eye to detect small detail is reduced. A purple fringe which looks frightening at 300% zoom factor on a computer screen, does completely disappear when the image is printed on A3 or reduced to a scale that the 20 inch screen can capture the whole image.

To redress the imbalance between techno-spasm and creative freedom, one should reflect on those technical topics that support a mood that intertwines the confidence that comes with technical mastery and the playfulness that comes with creative style and taste.

Photography is undeniably a technical/mechanical process. Currently you have two options: shoot at will and let the technical matters be cared about by the camera and software engineers or you can call forth all your technical skills to create the picture you envisage or can capture intuitively.

In the last case you have to think about what technical expertise you need to create the images you want. And here you have a wide range of choices. If you produce black&white pictures, the M8 with its extended IR sensitivity is a great tool. And if your goal is a portfolio of pictures on A4 format or double spreads (with print on demand options) then a pixel number above 20Mp and the occasional occurrence of purple fringing are non-issues.

I still stick to the approach that the best picture is the one with the least amount of post processing. Therefore I upgraded my equipment with a new tripod, the very sturdy and lightweight Gitzo GT3541LS with a Novoflex MagicBall head and a new Sekonic C-500 Prodigi Color for accurate color temperature. The white balance functions in the M8, M9 and S2 (to stay within the Leica range) are mot more than approximations and correct Kelvin degrees need to be measured with specific tools. When I need flash (for fill-in or one-source Hollywood lighting) I have the Metz 45 CL-4 digital, a powerful tool with some automation, but for best results some thinking and scene assessment is required. But brainpower is free!
When using these tools (exposure meter, color meter, tripod and occasionally flash ) I can get excellent performance and do not need to worry about required postprocessing (just use BW tools in Bibble, or Efex in Aperture or Lightroom 3). Of course it is interesting to study the limits when enlarging to 100% or even 200%, but there is a difference between studying technical limits for evaluation of potential performance and looking for meaningful restrictions for visual communication or expression.

Perhaps it is time to put technique where it belongs: as a device for picture taking and not as an end in itself. The designers of the Leica M3 at least assumed that the camera was an attractive instrument for creating fine imagery and not an end in itself as a collector’s item or a discussion topic.

In a recent article in The Economist you will read that the idea “less is more” is gaining ground in the technology industry. The fact that Microsoft, famous for its overloaded products, lost first place to Apple, famous for simple and elegant products is an important sign. Consumer electronics, including camera manufacturers are slaves to new-featuritis and this era is beginning to end. I use a word processor with an option for full-screen mode without any distractions, just the old-fashioned green screen with white figures. But not only the industry is feature-obsessed, the consumers have this perspective too. I have argued for several years that digital cameras should become simpler and processing more easier to emulate the chemical film processing. I have often remarked that the true mark of genius is simplicity of design and a focused approach to a few well-defined goals. Classical cameras from the seventies have these characteristics and true Leica cameras still exhibit this philosophy. The fact that the feature-laden X1 is seen by Leica as a real Leica camera did ring alarm bells at least with me. Is Leica forgetting its true DNA? Are they losing their option to become the heir of Apple in the photographic world? The S2 shows that Leica has the knack and guts to design a simple camera that only does one thing very good: make photographic pictures. The M9 in my view (and I remarked this in my review of that camera) could benefit by a reduction of software options and an optimization of the really important features for photographic practice. You could even think of a digital M3 with an upgraded rangefinder and a handful of lenses of breathtaking performance.
Many readers and visitors of my blog/website seem to agree with my view that taking pictures is more valuable that comparing and assessing features. daily I get messages from Leica users who remark that they stop with visiting sites and forums where you find endless comparisons and discussions about what is best and continue taking pictures which is more joy and generates more pleasure.
I get signals that the use of film is a bit growing and that the demise of the wet darkroom at least is slowing down. Even Mike Johnston is thinking about writing a text about the pleasure of the wet darkroom.

Testing of lenses and cameras is necessary to set true benchmarks and help prospective buyers to make a good choice. But testing becomes totally confusing when combined with the new-featuritis of current consumer electronics.

I get remarkably many mails from M8 users who stop their self-tormenting in thinking that they have an inferior camera (the power of myth-making in modern culture is astounding!), based on reading the many blogs and forums and start enjoying the act of photography. One should really stop with rating and ranking cameras and assume that a camera whose rating, based on a simple procedure, is not in the top-ten is not good. The factual results and the joy in using the camera and viewing and appreciating the results are the true arbiters.

The M8 is now four years old and the M9 is one year old. If we accept the new-featuritis ideology both cameras are obsolete. A better perspective would be that both cameras deliver pictures of excellent quality, way beyond what photographers only some years ago thought feasible.
The former president of the US, Bill Clinton is famous for the remark: it is the economy stupid. I would paraphrase with: It is the content stupid!
Photographs are about content and are not meant to be demonstrations of technological prowess or the demonstration of the effect of yet another new feature.
It would be nice and good for our economy and culture if we would start to appreciate the merits of minimalism in technology and the joy of taking pictures with simple and elegant equipment.

Analog slide rule versus digital calculator

The slide rule was the most important calculating instrument from 1715 to 1975. It has been claimed that no significant invention or scientific ida has been developed without the use of the slide rule. The beauty of this instrument is the fact that it is fast, quite accurate and helps to understand the inherent relationships and fundamental rules of numbers and mathematics in a truly visual way.
When HP introduced the first digital calculator in 1975 at a price worth a six month salary of a median worker, the end of the analog slide rule happened overnight. Within two years the slide rule had disappeared and is now a collectors item. The proponents of the digital calculator hoped that the easy access and simple method of calculations could foster the grasp of mathematics and numbers. But the opposite happened! Most students do not have an idea what they are doing when mechanically doing their button pushing to get the required answers.

The analogy with AgX photography and digital image making is evident. When the digital camera was introduced it cost a fortune, but within a decade AgX technology was obsolete and history repeats itself: hardly anybody nowadays grasps the basics of photography or the inherent relationships between scene and image capture and print. You win, you lose might be the comment, but there is more than just embracing a new technology. A great cultural loss may be the consequence if we forget the rules of AgX photography and its role for the method of digital image making.

Tolerances

The cult of numerical testing and comparing numbers is losing its potential for enlightenment. A cult is always in danger of creating excesses. Since the days that Zeiss took the step to publish MTF graphs as a supplement to informed lens appraisal, there is now a flood of numbers with a high level of numerological precision. A lens/camera combination has a resolution of 1221 lp/mm and this compares unfavorably to another lens/camera combo with 1240 lp/mm. The conclusion is quickly done. The internet has only 15 minute of fame for any product and comment. We do forget that any camera and lens has at least a production tolerance of 5%. We also forget that the margins for strictly controlled lab testing is at least 5% too. We also forget that human errors might add another 5%. If we for the sake of the argument stick to the minimal 10%, we see that the first result has a margin of error of 1209 to 1231 and the second one lays between 1228 and 1252. At most! In fact both camera/lens combinations might perform identically.
Now add another variable: the photographer. This variable may account for a margin of -25% to +10%. This number may be surprising. Given the number of parameters (expertise, experience, accuracy, exposure, handholding, focus errors, post processing, in camera processing and so on) this estimate may be even too low.
If we add these tolerances, it becomes clear that 90% of the discussions in the internat forums are simply discussing quality differences that are in fact within the margins of error. That is why these discussions never end and why they are not informative. If one comment claims that a camera/lens sucks and another claims that this same combo is the best there is, both claims might be right within the tolerance range and personal evaluation. But both claims are not informative as both do not take into account the margins of error. The test reports of let us say PopPhoto and DPReview and Color Photographie would become more interesting if they would add their margins of error.

One liners versus true discourse

In the Netherlands we are involved in a vote for a new parliament. Politicians are fond of one-liners that are intellectually empty and polished statements that evade addressing the really important questions and themes. Spin doctors are more important than informed persons who dare to refer to the true problems of our time. And the victim is the classical discourse: a dispassionate analysis of the real facts and what to make of them, the willingness to assume that one could be wrong in the discussion and the idea that a solution is more important than one’s conviction to be right.
This political culture is alas now the dominant force in internet discussions and websites. The internet once was invented to facilitate the free and fast exchange of scientific results and topics where scientists could present results and ask for informed comment.
Current internet mores are far removed form this ideal. And it has missed a great chance to really change the world.
Am I a neo-romanticist?

Two seemingly unrelated events will shake the world as we know it. The first and most significant event is the creation of an artificial organism. Two biologists used the knowledge of the technology of synthetic biology to create a bacterium with an artificial genome. This creature has no biological ancestors and is designed on the computer. A small step maybe, but it will have dramatic consequences for humanity.

Not so dramatic but certainly very significant is the fact that Apple overtakes Microsoft as the greatest technology firm. Computers are rapidly fading out the public sphere and handheld mobile tools take over. The touchscreen will become the dominant way of interacting with digital technology as the iPhones and iPads demonstrate. What we need to do with computers will be put in the cloud and programs will be no longer needed on the computer. The handheld can just activate in the cloud what functions are needed.
Given the small gap between modern handhelds and a digital camera, where the display is becoming the main command center of the tool, we may expect that sooner or later the touchscreen with finger movements will be incorporated into cameras. That would force the disappearance of all the buttons and wheels on a camera and clean up the camera design. More functions can even be incorporated as the finger can sweep effortless over the screen. Then we have the ultimate in digital technology: one finger commands the digital camera. Remember that digital is from digit is from finger. Les extremes se touchent.

Digital images are as artificial as the results of synthetic biology and there enough realistic images made with POV-Ray or even Photoshop that have no roots in reality. A creature without ancestors is artificial, and so is an image representing reality without being grounded in the real world. The impossible body shapes of fashion models and even film stars are only the beginning of a trend to create one’s own reality with cameras operating as computers or computers operating as cameras. These images will crowd the cloud and physical reality will become the artificial world.

Photography has always been the champion defender of the factual and true representation of physical reality and in science it still is. In our culture however photography is now even more artificial than painting. Recent ads from a camera manufacturer show this attitude: you see a person with a picture from a realistic scene and the ad asks: why settle for less: create your own reality!.

My test results with the Leica S2 indicate that you do not need any postprocessing to do to get outstandingly good prints. The same is true with the M8/M9 with some restrictions. The old ideal with AgX technology to go straight from the negative to the print withut human manipulation is still possible with Leica cameras and the Leica technique even invites you do take this route. The trends sketched in this article indicate that this technique is really needed to avoid becoming the last of the Mohicans in defending the true depiction of the real world and to set a landmark next to the world of the artificial.

It is not great news to note that any lens for photographic purposes has defects. There are intrinsic optical defects (the results of the optical design and glass choice). There are mechanical defects, some intentional (the construction of the mount generates flare) and some non-intentional as the drift of tolerances. And we have the occasional production failures which occur and come to light only after it has happened.
How good a lens may be, you will always find characteristics that are not good. Every retro-focus wide angle lens will show softness and flare in the corners and edges of the frame, not only wide open but also stopped down. This is a basic trait of the design. Symmetrical designs, like the Angulon are indeed better in this respect, but show other ‘defects’. It is now customary to view the images at 100% or even 400% at the computer screen and search for characteristics that attract visual attention. Persons who take landscape pictures with a 21mm lens on 135-format and detect flare or softness in the edges of the image, should not complain that the lens is wrong or not well adjusted. This behavior is state of the art, so to speak: it is part of the intrinsic design. The exaggerated expectations of many photographers are fed by the industry that claims to have lenses that are ‘tack-sharp’ wide open over the whole image field, extending into the far corners of the image. And of course there are the countless websites and statements in the innumerable internet forums that attach mythical claims and unsubstantiated allegations to lenses. As soon as somebody notes that he, after testing is disappointed with a a certain lens, some one else will immediately jump up to claim that his version is beyond reproach.

The best arbiter in such disputes is the MTF graph. When done correctly this information gives the true state of a lens. And looking at graphs of wide angle retro-focus lenses we see always a significant drop in the contract at the edges, mostly beyond the 18mm image height (based on a 21.6 diagonal of the frame). Discussion closed you would say. In a sense it indeed is. But the MTF does not tell you how the representation of the detail in the edges is: is it a blurred image, is there flare which reduces contrast? What exactly can we see? Here lens designs differ and this cannot be inferred from the curves. You really need to look at the pictures. But then another serious problem occurs. How can you create a test setting that really is accurate for the task at hand. A simple example: it is very difficult to align the camera/lens exactly parallel to the the object you wish to photograph. If it is not parallel, the behavior of the edges will differ and which one is representative, if at all?

For the tests of the S2-lenses I worked with a lab setting where the test targets are absolutely plane and aligned and the camera/lens is adjusted such that the sensor plane is absolutely parallel to the target plane. (this is one of the few instances where Live View is a really good thing). To get the best results, accurate focusing is a must. I can confess that finding the best focus is not easy and takes much time and concentration and trail and error to find the optimal focus. I can also note and that should not be news, that no AF system now on the market sets the focus accurately. Even the redoubtable Nikon D3x would not find the optimum focus position: manual adjustment was required. The same goes for the S2 and the Sony A900 which were used also to get a good range for comparison purposes. The M9, to complete the picture, also required focus bracketing to find the optimum position. And it should be stated in red, so that the reader gets the message, that very small changes in the focus setting/movement have serious consequences for the image quality.
The generation of the MTF graphs is relatively easy and always very accurate. To get the optimum position the program moves the light source to find the best focus plane (smallest point source or slit width) to micron-accuracy. Then you know that the best quality is assured.
This measurement produces accurate results within its systems setting. There is no relation to the practical photographic situation where all kinds of degradation effects can occur: AF errors, range finder alignment, mechanical tolerances, the observers eye and so on. There are three conditions that are never mentioned in photographic testing that have dramatical impact on the performance of the system: (1) handholding the camera will reduce the optimum quality by at least 50% (image stabilisation really helps!); (2) you cannot hold accurate focus when working without a tripod: the AF is generally not reliable and even the slightest movement from the head or body that moves the camera from or to the object during or after focusing will shift the optimum plane of focus; (3) the usual objects to photograph are three dimensional with many differently angled surfaces and a large depth. The behavior of the lens when recording out of focus areas before and after the plane of sharpness (wherever that may be located) differs from design to design and from distance to distance. And the way the lens reacts to specular highlights and diffuse highlights (all of these effects lumped together under the heading of bokeh) is not seen in the shape of the MTF graphs.

These effects are however of prime importance for the image composition and visual impact of the photograph. The current trend in photographic testing is using a slant edge or one of the many test charts found on the internet and go for a kind of simplified MTF testing. A program as Imatest does a good job here, but one must realize that finding a numerical value at 50% contrast or a figure like 2134 lp/ph does not say anything important about the photographic behavior of a lens. We are in danger of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face! Because lenses are ranked according to these simple figures and numerical results, optical designers are forced by the marketing departments to optimize designs that reflect these preferences.

There is arising a big and widening gap between the constructs of optical designers and the serious photographic practice.
Many optical designers of previous generations were actively involved in photography and could understand what effects a certain design and its inherent balance of errors might have on the resulting photograph. Modern optimization programs are blind to photographic demands.
The two S2 lenses I have checked, the Summarit-S 2.5/70 and the Apo-Elmar-S 3.5/180, show excellent respectively superb MTF behavior. In this case the results ‘in the field’ do reflect the performance as implied by the curves. But there is more: these two lenses show outstandingly good color correction, above what is seen in the classical 35mm scene. The lenses are corrected even for the deep blue part of the spectrum (in the region to 400nm) where the contrast values are still above 90%. The very smooth definition in highlights and the faint occurrence of color fringes at edges of strong contrast are the result of this correction strategy.

Regardless of the quality and relevance of the testing procedures and methods, we should realize that many test-results as can be found in the internet and in printed magazines too are not relevant for photography. The second important observation is this: even if the results are relevant, we can hardly translate these results to our normal photographic practice. When we restrict ourselves to studying test charts at 400% on the computerscreen or looking for defects in the smallest posible details, we are fooling ourselves. As soon as we want serious pictures with visual impact, we need more and different information. And perhaps we need lenses that are designed with a new paradigm, which in effect is an old one: what is really needed for high impact photographic images.

We might argue that all of this is nowadays hardly important as we have lots and lots of potent software that can correct most of not all imaging defects. There is a grain of truth here, but any correction will change, degrade the image or shift the visual balance.
Images made with the Nikon D3x and the Hasselblad with 39Mb digital back show remarkably small differences in performance and image quality on a calibrated large computer screen. One must acknowledge the very advanced and potent software of the prime Japanese camera builders. This performance compensates a deficit of at least 10Mb of pixels in the sensor size or a substantial difference in optical quality.

The main conclusion however is inevitable: most test results are based on a small subset of performance criteria that are not really meaningful for the photographic practice nor truly representative of the really important parameters of a modern lens design.
The marketing machine of the major companies, the reports by magazines and websites where lens performance is described in cloaked terms and the over-enthusiastic claims by users have created a fantasy world of expectations for optical excellence, in the same way as Photoshop manipulations have created a fantasy world of feminine body shapes.

Long ago, a marketing man of a major 35mm camera manufacturer admitted that he used promo pictures made with a medium format camera. This does not happen anyone, one may presume. But we should seriously reflect on our current lopsided approach to image quality and find a new avenue to intimately connect photographically important image quality with quantitative test results. As was the case in the past when the first MTF graphs of photographic lenses were published.

The relevance of Aristotle

Aristotle lived 2500 years ago, but most of his thinking is still relevant today. One of his important ideas is the theory of money. Money is in itself worthless, but when used as a means to an end it is valuable. What you buy must be worth more than the money itself, otherwise you would not wish to buy it. The product you buy should give you a certain positive feeling that you value more than the product itself. And at the highest level the feeling you get from the product should make you happy and help you live a good life. That is the goal for all of us: live a good life and be happy.
The amount of money and the amount of products we have or own is limited by the definition of a good life. The important question then is to define what a good life is, because that definition determines what we need and what amount of money we should have. This approach has a dangerous connotation: when the idea of a good life vanishes, there is no limit to the amount of money we want to have. How much money is enough? The answer is simply that the maximum is limitless, just as the number range does not end, even in infinity. As soon as the idea of a good life disappears, we are stuck in an endless quest for maximizing our needs. The logical consequence is greed as we see in the Wall Street inhabitants.
Our culture has lost the focus on the good life and therefore we want to maximize every experience and need: the idea of maximizing our needs defines our working life, sex life and all of our other experiences.

It is very easy to map this thinking on the current state of photography. The idea of a good life can be interpreted as the idea of a good photograph or in modern parlance a good image. What the content of such a photograph should be is for now not important: it might be a fully photoshop-distorted visual construct. The main question is this: what product do we need to create this kind of image that makes us happy. The derivative question then will be how much money do we need to buy that product.

Sometimes browsing internet forums, I am always surprised that individuals sign their contribution with a listing of the products they own, as if this adds weight to the opinion they express or adds importance to the standing of the person. It would be more interesting to show important pictures that they are happy with: the quality of life so to speak.

The two golden ages of photography were defined by the quality of the images that were being made. There were cameras that made these pictures possible, but mainly it were the photographers who created the pictures and defined what good photography should be.

Currently manufacturers of cameras follow the maximizing approach: more is better and more makes you happy. The sad fact is that most buyers of equipment are deeply insecure about their purchase: the reviews by sites and magazines who live by delivering test results are mostly focused on making the buyer happy with his purchase. The weak point is the lack of a reference to the definition of a good life/photograph. If we are aspiring to create good photography we select by logical thinking the camera/lens system we need to accomplish our goal and then we are immune for advertising or other mind bending attacks to influence our feelings.

For several weeks now I am very busy photographing with the Leica S2. My first inclination was to go for the maximizing approach: compare the S2 feature-set to what others have to offer. But then I changed my mind and went for the Aristotle analysis: would I be happy with the S2 and will this product help me to create the pictures I would define as good photography.
In fact this is the idea that Leica has followed since the construction of the Leica Null Series: a product that makes you happy and helps you to make pictures that are good in emotion and content.

Cameras, equipment and software are now performing on such a high level and with so many common features and characteristics that is is difficult to make a choice that suits your needs and emotions. Equipment reviews now excel in meaningless jargon that evades the clear language we need to make rational and reasonable choices. Below is an example of an actual review by the well-known Dpreview team.
Conclusion Snippet: Despite our (very minor) complaints, the EOS 550D is a very satisfying camera, and certainly offers the most compelling feature set of any nominally ‘entry level’ DSLR that we’ve used. It isn’t just about spec though – the 550D’s refined handling and excellent supplied software suite should not be overlooked. Although it doesn’t represent a huge improvement over the 500D, the changes that have been made are worthwhile, and well-implemented. An external mic socket, manual control and wide choice of resolutions and frame rates means that the 550D is worthy of consideration for serious video use, and when paired with a high quality lens, image quality is superb.
With all this taken into account, it is hard not to recommend the EOS 550D. Quite simply, taken as a whole, it is the best camera of its class that we’ve ever seen, and one of those rare cameras that won’t look out of date in a couple of years’ time.
When reading this text superficially it seems to give you a balanced and expert opinion. The conclusion: buy the EOS 550.
But is this text really informative. First a little game. Below is the same text, but with EOS 550 replaced by EOS 7D.
Conclusion Snippet: Despite our (very minor) complaints, the EOS 7D is a very satisfying camera, and certainly offers the most compelling feature set of any nominally ‘professional level’ DSLR that we’ve used. It isn’t just about spec though – the EOS 7D’s refined handling and excellent supplied software suite should not be overlooked. Although it doesn’t represent a huge improvement over the EOS 50, the changes that have been made are worthwhile, and well-implemented. An external mic socket, manual control and wide choice of resolutions and frame rates means that the EOS 7D is worthy of consideration for serious video use, and when paired with a high quality lens, image quality is superb.
With all this taken into account, it is hard not to recommend the EOS 7D. Quite simply, taken as a whole, it is the best camera of its class that we’ve ever seen, and one of those rare cameras that won’t look out of date in a couple of years’ time.

With the camera 1D MkIV in the text, the conclusion is still valid, as are all remarks. You could insert Nikon D3x or whatever camera you like and the text still sounds informative. Let us now comment the original sentences.

Despite our (very minor) complaints (is there any camera where you cannot have complaints about? Would it not be more informative to relate complaints to real photographic needs?) , the EOS 550D is a very satisfying camera (satisfying to whom and in what sense?), and certainly offers the most compelling feature set (fascinating and irresistible to what kind of person?) of any nominally ‘entry level’ DSLR that we’ve used. It isn’t just about spec though – the 550D’s refined handling and excellent supplied software suite should not be overlooked (what is meant by ‘refined’ and ‘excellent’ and why should you not overlook it? Most cameras are refined and excellent!). Although it doesn’t represent a huge improvement over the 500D (what must an improvement be to become ‘huge’?), the changes that have been made are worthwhile (for whom and why?), and well-implemented (please explain!) . An external mic socket, manual control and wide choice of resolutions and frame rates means that the 550D is worthy of consideration for serious video use, and when paired with a high quality lens, image quality is superb (that is a big claim: ‘superb image quality’ is not easy to stumble across, but maybe the reviewer has a different normative idea about what is superb and excellent and very good and so on) .
With all this taken into account, it is hard not to recommend the EOS 550D. (Any camera can be recommended on this list of comments!) Quite simply, taken as a whole (can you take the camera as a part?), it is the best camera of its class (define ‘class’ quite narrowly and every camera is the best of class) that we’ve ever seen, and one of those rare cameras that won’t look out of date in a couple of years’ time (‘rare’? what modern camera has looks that are outdated in a few years?.

All in all then the above text is a good example of non-information disguised as an expert opinion. We must face this truth: companies that sell photographic equipment have very often outsourced their marketing efforts to public relation companies that do know how to set up a marketing campaign but do not know anything about photography. I know from the experience I have with the Dutch magazine I wrote articles for, that marketing people give advertising money to those magazines where the articles are favorable for the product/company that is being advertised. There is a simple rule: the marketing person reads the article and counts the number of negative and positive remarks. The decision to advertise again depends on this ratio.
The equipment reviewers are not to be envied to say the least: camera development tends to create products that represent the common denominator of buyer wishes and most differences between camera types are small or only qualitative of character. Camera/lens reviews now have more in common with book or movie reviews than with technical assessments. The review cited above dwells on the look of the camera, the feature set and the fact that is an improvement compared to the predecessor and other competitors in the same class. There is one remark about the superb quality, but is the superb quality in the entry-level class the same as the superb quality in the professional class or the advanced user class?
There is not one single remark about the practical photographic experience and the real photographic results that are possible. Perhaps cameras are now so similar that it is impossible to make a review that defines the type of users that can benefit from the purchase of this camera. After all: book reviews and movie reviews try to inform the reader of the review of a particular book or movie what to expect from the novel or movie and for what type of reader the book or viewer of the movie can be a pleasant experience.
We seem to live in an information-saturated society, but the amount of non-information is increasing exponentially.