My September 15, 2009 posting about the Leica M9 attracted a lot of angry comments from rabid Leica enthusiasts. I pointed out the oddness of people being excited by a Leica that comes 7 years later than the comparable Canon and costs nearly three times as much. My assumption in the posting was that Leica had produced something roughly equivalent in image quality to Canon’s mainstream advanced amateur body, the 5D Mark II
This issue put the Sony A850 and the Leica M9 through their standardized test protocol. The Sony is the world’s cheapest full-frame digital SLR, selling for $2,000 (compared to about $2,650 for the Canon 5D Mark II). The Leica is the world’s most expensive, at $7,000. How did the cameras compare on Pop. Photo’s test bench? The Sony, with a 24 MP Sony-built CMOS sensor, achieved “low” noise through ISO 1600. This is greatly inferior to the 5D Mark II, which had a very similar noise measurement at ISO 6400 (two f-stops more sensitive). The Sony delivered 3135 lines of resolution and a superb “7.7” on color accuracy, albeit still inferior to Canon’s.
How did the Leica perform, at 3.5X the price of the Sony? Noise from the 18MP CCD sensor became “moderate” at ISO 1600 and “unacceptable” at ISO 2500. The noise of the M9 at ISO 800 was comparable to the Canon 5D Mk II at ISO 6400. Leica’s color accuracy and resolution were significantly inferior to the Sony.
How did Popular Photography deal with the embarrassingly poor image quality results of the $7000 Leica compared to the Japanese cameras? “They’re completely differently tools for completely different styles of photographer. We don’t categorize the M9 as a pro model–think of it as the ultimate (deep-pocketed) enthusiast’s camera.”
Leica was beaten not just by Canon, its competitor from the 1950s rangefinder days, but by Sony, a company that is relatively new to the still photography market. Now that we taxpayers have purchased GM and Chrysler at a cost of $100 billion, let’s hope that this doesn’t happen in the car market. Just when GM and Chrysler think that they might have something that can sell in competition with a U.S.-made Honda or Toyota, new manufacturers from India and China may blindside them.
[Update: I found a Canon white paper on sensors that says that CCD sensors, especially big ones, consume a lot more power than CMOS. Unless the sensor is cooled, like a CCD used in a physics experiment, the result will be more noise in the image. This may explain the poor high ISO performance of the Leica.]
The problem about Leica is two fold: they don’t seem to have made the right choices, and they are late at it. The M9 is what the M8 should have been. The price is Leica’s. Before, Leica sold cameras in which you put the film other manufacturers, FujiFilm, Kodak, developed and manufactured, and intrinsically the quality of the picture (noise, colour) was related to said film, and the associated processing. But in the M9, it is all the electronic part that does not work. Even if they subcontracted it to Jenoptik that seemed to have more experience. The M8 used a Kodak sensor, which didn’t have a good reputation, and they made odd choices in the software, like 8 bits RAW with a LUT (while Canon was 10, 12 and now 14 bits) which takes an important part in processing the sensor data.
A side note:
Sony is not directly new. They have been in the field of sensors and electronics for a very long time, as well as an early maker of digital point & shoots, For the DSLR they just bought Minolta’s division, transferring all their assets to Sony. That is a non-negligible part: a renowned SLR manufacturer combined with a very good expertise in (consumer) electronics and sensors. That’s what the Alpha DSLR from Sony is made of.
On the other hand, the Leica M9 has a unique attribute: it is a rangefinder camera. And that’s a quality that some photographer really appreciate. Unfortunately, that comes with a price. Today, the closest I could find on the market is the Panasonic GF-1, with a viewfinder, either the electronic one (200$ extra and not the clarity of Leica’s) or if you have prime lenses (including M – and that may not be the best idea), an external view finder, with all the disadvantages. Not a rangefinder, but eye-level viewfinder that is decent, small form factor, and no mirror-shake for one seventh of the price of the Leica (body only, no accessories).
(Philip, this comment is more for your readers than yourself, as it is your essays on photo.net that taught me a lot about photography)
You’re on target, Phil. As a longtime Leica user it became apparent several years ago I was fighting a uphill battle trying to stay in the Leica family. For someone like me there’s no comparison of shooting with an M camera. But, in the end, I simply couldn’t keep justifying the purchases.
No one makes my ideal non-DSLR camera today, although I think the micro-4/3rds will ultimately come closest. I wish they were more in the vein of a Leica, e.g. rangefinder) but without the Leica price. Prices are still too high for what they are though.
As @Hub says, the big problem with Leica is that if you don’t have the electronics, none of the rest matters. You can’t just pawn off the film to Kodak any longer and just worry about flashing an image onto that film for a fraction of a second. You have to actually capture and process that image which is a whole different type of engineering.
Can someone explain to me why Leica did not simply start making film/partner with someone making film to guarantee that the medium will live as long as Leica Camera lives?
They are targeting a small niche market anyway, would the cost of getting into digital be offset by increasing the size of the market? at their price point I doubt.
An advantage of just making film cameras and selling film is that you keep getting revenue through selling the medium, not just the cameras. In any case, anyone explaining the business model would have my gratitude.
Federico: I wouldn’t worry too much about film availability. You can still get vacuum tubes from Russian and Central European factories. One problem with promoting 35mm film is that it is obviously far worse in image quality than what comes out of a modern digital camera. If you took a photo with a Canon 5D Mark II and the image came out looking like a scanned Tri-X 35mm negative, you would send the camera back for repair.
Phil, well a lot of people would argue that properly scanned film will always be better than digital 😉
Even conceding that ‘average scans of film’ are outperformed by digital, who cares? Given what you say, there is a natural suspension of disbelief when it comes to Leica. If there is a company that could pull it off it’s them.
So, I am left wondering: given Leica’s ‘glamour’, couldn’t they just throw some film to the users an not bother with digital? If they competed with the big players for a share of the market, with excellent and affordable Leica digitals, I’d understand it. They throw to the market a camera that is very expensive. Are they really increasing their market share over and above than the ‘stick to film’ equation?
Phil, an issue that is still neglected when approaching this subject is the already available society of Leica lens owners as well as the exclusivity of the M9 as a digital rangefinder. The M9 price, although quite expensive is not only about the sensor performance either on high Asa or in color accuracy. It is about photography the way only a Leica rangefinder can do it and bringing out the subtleties and uniqueness of its lenses. It is about the relation that establishes itself between photographer and subject and the line of “peaceful chemistry” that connects between both. It is carrying a small device that complements and embellishes rather than dominate a photo-shoot, and it is a continuity and constancy with a brand that even if not level with top SLR Japanese makers now, still has large potential in most of its lenses to be unleashed when and if they manage to level with the japanese counterparts, thing which is worth the wait and patience for a Leica user.
The 7k are worth paying if they deliver good results in normal photography (normal iso), and superb results they deliver.
I don’t see the issue being raised every time about this Leica/ Sony/ Canon/ Nikon issue knowing that also canon’s top of the line as well as Nikon’s are in the same league price wise as the M9!!
Why don’t you make an issue of the D1s price or the D3x price versus the 5d MKII and you make a big issue for the M9 remains for me awkward.
take a look at this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness.htm
basic conclusion of the writer:
“Shoot a Leica. It weighs less, looks better and costs less than a D3X, even with ancient lenses. Imagine how well it will work with modern ASPH lenses! See A Canon vs. Leica vs. Nikon Sharpness comparison with modern lenses.
If shooting the 5D Mark II, make sure whatever lenses you use give good focus. With Canon, some lens and camera combos result in misfocusing a small percentage of the time, even when AF OK lights up.”
I would love to understand why the conclusions of pop photo and this blog as so different.
Joel: Thanks for the link. I was shocked at how well the old Leica lens performed, especially with a color image. Usually those old lenses are great for black and white but modern multi-coating gives better contrast for color images.
Regarding the Canon autofocus problem, a friend of mine who is a professional photojournalist in love with the 85/1.2 says that he has to use http://www.lensalign.com/ to get the Canon bodies to work properly with fast lenses. It is a one-time calibration that for him has resulted in his percentage of acceptably sharp images going from 10% to 80%.
My problem with the 5D Mark II is that the automatic exposure system doesn’t seem to be very good compared to my old 5D (or even my 1994 Canon EOS film bodies). For anything other than a gray card I end up going into manual exposure mode.
There is a lot of room for innovation in the digital camera market. The megapixel war is certainly unproductive at this point. A 40 MP sensor would simply show the limited resolving power of lenses designed for 35mm film. The interesting question is how to map the roughly 16-stop range of tones in the natural world (bright sunlight to dark shadows) to the limited range of tones that can be displayed on a computer monitor or delivered from a reflective print. A photographer should not have to put the camera on a tripod, take multiple exposures, and then use post-processing HDR software to merge images.
Joel: To your question about why Popular Photography might end up giving a great review to a camera that does not produce great results in the hands of a typical user… I think that they test bodies on an optical bench. I’m not sure what lens they are using to make resolution and color accuracy tests, for example, but it is the same lens for all the cameras (at least all of those with sensors of a constant size) and it is not something that a consumer could or would buy (probably very heavy and with no focus mechanism). It wouldn’t make sense to test a Canon 5D with a Canon 50/1.4 and then talk about the body’s color accuracy because color distortions could be coming from the lens.
Phil,
So basically what you are telling me is that the pop photo “Test” is kind of worthless. If the goal was to make average readers feel superior about their camera choices it’s a success, to give material for “Hah, HAH, SO THERE” blogs entries (ahhh like yours) it’s a success but so would a review comparing a Lotus to a Chevy if you use the same body on both cars.
The main reason for using a Leica is the lens system. with the camera you have a superb machine that is the most compact full frame camera on the market with unbelievable lenses that are very very fast. The cost, contrary to the article, is about the same for the body as other very high end professional bodies, the lenses are also in the same range (see how much a professional grade fast zoom costs) but a little higher – mostly because of the very low volume of production. Essentially all pop photo looked at was the sensor which is very good but probably needs some software upgrades to improve. But overall the package taps the power of the lenses.
I don’t have an M9. If I could put my Leica lenses on my other cameras I would. I hate my current DSLR and I don’t seem to be shooting my M6 these days. I expect I will get an M9 one day – but I can’t afford it yet. (although if you actually use the camera what you save on film will pay for the body pretty quickly)
As for your tonal range issue – have you tried platinum prints? I ave seen really really good color digital prints, NO really good digital b+w prints, and it seems like most things to really wring out the potential of an image takes skill and fancy processing (analog or digital) all the way through the process.
oh – one more thing – the old Leica lenses that were tested in the link I gave were old but still would be coated lenses. Not as good as modern Leica coating but as long as the coating was in good shape pretty good. I have the 60’s vintage dual range 50mm that is one of the the sharpest – to this day – 50mm lenses ever made. (it’s also 3 x the size of a modern Leica even faster 50mm)
A much older, far smaller and slower, screw mount 90mm lense I happen to like to travel with isn’t coated but still does pretty darn good – no comparison to my much larger f2 90mm from the 90’s but a lot lighter and smaller and very good imaging in color.
Joel: Understood that anti-reflective coating is not new (goes back to 1935 at Zeiss). But I think that there were big improvements in multi-coating design starting around 1970 when optical designers routinely applied computer analysis to the problem.
Regarding “[my] tonal range issue”. It isn’t my personal issue! Ansel Adams created the Zone System to deal with this challenge. A piece of paper cannot be 100 percent reflective or 100 percent absorptive, especially not if you insist on the same surface finish over all areas. So a print can have good tonal gradation (what Ansel Adams strove for) but it can never have anywhere near the contrast of a sunny day outdoor scene.
Is the Pop Photo test “worthless”? For a photojournalist, probably. He or she needs an end-to-end test with the lenses that will actually be used (and if they aren’t in focus, to use lensalign!). For a typical consumer, probably. He or she will use the crummy kit lens that was thrown in with the body and the pictures will be of mediocre image quality. But the tests are still interesting. There are surely more than 200 lenses available on the current new market that will fit a Canon or Nikon body. There is no way that Pop. Photo can know which lens a reader is going to be using and their job is to write something about the body.
As for Leica lenses being of good quality, that has certainly been true whenever they’ve been bench-tested. But Canon and Nikon can make high quality expensive lenses when they think that there is a market for one, e.g., the Canon 85/1.2. And sometimes even their cheap lenses test well. I remember a British magazine that tested every 50mm lens about 10 years ago. They included designs from Zeiss and Leica as well as the standard Japanese optics. Their absolute favorite from both bench-testing and real-world results? The Nikon 50/1.8.
Why haven’t working professional photographers used Leica equipment for the past few decades (the Nikon F represented the end of Leica’s market share among professionals)? If they couldn’t get the quality they needed from Canon and Nikon 35mm gear they would use a Hasselblad or Mamiya medium format camera. The same thing goes on today. If you visit a professional lab that prints for museums and galleries and ask them to show you what they think are high quality original files they’ll show you a few from the Canon full-frame DSLRs and then move on to images taken with medium format digital backs.
joel: i think the comparison of ken rockwell is nteresting regarding nikon and leice. It is worthless regarding the canon lens, since it only states: ‘i didn’t focus correctly’