Start With the Work and Work Backwards (The Stillborn Leica Challenge)

Dave Millier wrote, yesterday:

"As someone who shoots Micro 4/3, APS-C, full-frame (60MP), and 44x33mm medium format, I can say in practice I don't really find any image quality difference between them. I'm sure that if I were printing 50" wide prints, I'd find small differences, but in my favoured size of 12x12 inches, I find the image quality indistinguishable. This is still true when I print 150-MP square stitches from my Fotodiox Rhinocam Vertex rotary stitch adaptor and Pentax 645 lenses. There is only so much real detail a printer can lay down on paper per inch, and that seems to be the limitation. At the 12" tall print size, all my cameras out-perform the printer/ink/paper.

"I use MF camera primarily for long exposure work and it is excellent at this. The MF camera has the ability to shoot multi-minute exposures without needing LENR [long exposure noise reduction —Ed.] (which would double exposure time). It has shutter speeds to one hour and doesn't need a cable release or Bulb mode. A great convenience in an inconvenient genre.

"My Micro 4/3 has mostly been supplanted by my A7r IV which is an oversized Micro 4/3, APS-C, and FF camera all in the same body—a body which is smaller than my Micro 4/3 camera. I particularly enjoy using it in FF mode with my 85mm ƒ/1.4 and in Micro 4/3+ mode with a 18–135mm superzoom. I do love a good superzoom for handheld work. I even have a superzoom for the MF camera, an adapted Tamron 28–300mm Canon EF mount lens. I find it useful, even if MF purists would throw up their hands in horror. What works, works.

"I agree, sensors are good enough these days for almost everything. People worry too much about the quality of gear; it's all good."

Mike adds: Thanks Dave. I started to get into that in yesterday's post, but decided it was a topic too far. Those of us imprinted on film and its properties have a hard time letting go of the "more square inches is better" property inherent in film. We really want a way to ensure that our images will look better than those of our peers, and we wish that using bigger sensors was a guaranteed way to get that, but, while there are differences, it's just not that easy to see, and, generally speaking, it frustrates our hopeful expectations. Most of my sorties into FF have been disappointing—it just doesn't look that much better than APS-C. Not automatically so, at least. It's not that I can't detect differences—it's just that they don't stand out.

There are exceptions. My friend Jack's Leica S2, years ago, had a very distinctive, pleasing look—but how much of that was due to the amazing lenses? The clue is that the special properties were visible even in small JPEGs. My monochrome camera has beguiling detail, but how much of that is due to the fact that it uses every photosite in forming the image? Because I saw similar qualities in Jim Kofron's Sigma foveon-sensor images.

I suppose we must delve into the other properties of various sensors to get at the reasons why one would choose one or another. Someone mentioned a while back that FF sensors are best for ultra-wide-angle lenses; you, Dave, mention the long-exposure superiority of medium-format digital cameras; another reader mentioned yesterday that Micro 4/3 might look nearly as good in daylight as FF, but that FF pulls ahead in low light. I know that Jack actually needed his Leica S2 camera because he routinely prints and sells large to huge prints (if you enter the soaring atrium of Lambeau Field, where the Green Bay Packers play, you'll see some of his pictures printed the size of billboards. [Is that still the case, Jack?] Way back then, a 13-MP Canon was the super-resolution camera in FF). A high-MP sensor might be especially useful if it allows you to crop more. And so on.

The very best way to tell is to own all the cameras, so I especially appreciate your input, Dave. That way you're not swayed by ownership bias, and your viewpoint isn't distorted by lack of experience with some of the options. Ken Tanaka also has broad experience with cameras up to medium format. I don't, and I have to say I'm not particularly curious. At the moment.

Start with the work and work backwards
For a lot of my long-ago history, I would let work lead me to techniques and equipment. That is, I would see pictures, be impressed by them, find out how they were made, and then that's why I'd get interested in that technique. It didn't start by reading about how such-and-such is so great and then coveting that because of its reputation or prestige, or by making assumptions based on what ought to be the case. It wasn't theoretical. It was practical. If I couldn't see a difference in practice, I tended not to care so much.

That was true even if something was "supposed" to be better or best. In the '80s, Leica lenses were reputed to be the best. Some of them were very good, but, as with every other manufacturer, some were better than others and their characteristics weren't completely stable across different lenses. Leica did a good job, and made some very fine lenses, but so did Pentax and Canon and Nikon and Contax/Zeiss. My opinion that Leica was just another (good) manufacturer was met with stiff resistance by Leica fanatics. I eventually made a set of prints of ten pictures with a variety of lenses, and issued a challenge to the forums I frequented. Anyone want to look at the set and see if they can pick out the three that are made with Leica lenses? The response was a flurry of hemming and hawing. Some people said my prints weren't big enough to tell (they were 35mm negs printed full-frame on 11x14). Others said the test would be invalid because my prints were B&W and it was in the special color transmission of Leica lenses that the magic resided. Still others said the test was flawed because I used the wrong film—Tri-X. How could they be expected to tell with a film that had "huge" grain? A few even suggested that there was psychological bias—they accused me of wanting the test to go against Leica, such that I unconsciously (!) took more care with the prints and pictures made with the non-Leica lenses!

And all that was before anyone had actually seen the prints. Or tried the challenge.

Finally, one guy said he would agree to take a challenge. But not with my ten prints. He said I had to shoot Kodachrome transparency film, and I had to use a tripod and a cable release. He shot Kodachrome himself, so if I would only do that, he would be able to pick out the Leica pictures.

At that, I gave up.

Anyway, I can recommend determining your own preferences based on seeing work first, as one possible way of deciding how to work. If you like a certain technique or type of equipment, and notice yourself gravitating to pictures made that way fairly consistently, that's a good reason to go after that kind of technique or that kind of equipment. You don't have to justify yourself. It's not necessary that others feel the same way about it that you do. If you like something, then you do; so go for it. You don't have to make apologies. This goes for "bad" as well as "good" equipment. Your photography is yours, so suit yourself.

Leica S-System R.I.P.?
By the way, I missed the fact that the Leica S3—the fourth iteration of Leica's medium-format 30x45mm-sensor SLR, was discontinued in 2023, and a successor has not been announced. The S-System consisted of four cameras: the S2, S Typ 006, S Typ 007, and S3, introduced in 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2018 respectively. (There was an S1, but it was a square-format scanner-camera and not part of the pictorial camera series.) The S2 sold quite well considering its stratospheric cost, mainly to wealthy Chinese photographers who wanted the best, among whom it was popular in the early and middle 20-teens. However, other medium-format digital cameras overtook the slow development of the S-System, and evidently the S3, which didn't actually ship until right in time for the pandemic, never sold well.

Rumor has it that Leica is at work on a mirrorless medium-format camera to be announced in 2025, but this hasn't happened yet. The fate of the S-System lens line is currently unclear.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jack Mac [the Jack in the post —Ed.]: "When the Leica M10 monochrome matched the results of the Leica S (whichever, 2, 006, or 007) converted to B&W, I sold the S system. But it worked for a decade! Yet when I first got the system in 2011, it provided four times the resolution of any FF camera, and for the size I was printing, anyone could see the difference. Now all cameras have more resolution than required. Frankly the 37.6 MP it had then is good enough for today. Now the game is high dynamic range and high clean ISO. And most cameras deliver. To me, today, the improvements in what’s available in LR and PS software make for more meaningful differences in results than any equipment."

Rick in CO: "The Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras are not that much smaller than some FF cameras. Zoom lenses for FF are getting smaller, provided you don't require ƒ/2.8 or faster, and single focal length lenses can be quite compact. Unless price is the issue, I see no reason to buy anything less than the quality that FF allows."

Steve Biro: "It’s been years since I’ve been concerned about image quality between full frame, APS-C and even Micro 4/3—at least in real-world use. But I’m glad you brought up the subject of lenses, Mike. Because while I have some proper (and period correct) Leica glass for my 1967 M4, I typically use Voigtländer lenses for my digital M's, and Sigma DG DN Art glass for my Leica SL2. Frankly, computer design of modern lenses and Sigma’s dramatic quality improvements over the past several years make strict use of Leica glass unnecessary. And, as you once did, I defy purists to spot which images were taken with a given lens."

William Glokas: "This reminds me of an assignment I had when I was a photojournalism student at BU [Boston University —Ed.]. We were given Brownie cameras and told to take photos. The assignment was to teach us that it's the photographer's eye and not the equipment that makes for a great photograph."

Comments

[Bryan Geyer]

Judging lens resolution differences from photos made when NOT using a tripod and cable release just makes no sense. Consider this excerpt from an old Really Right Stuff brochure that was initially published back in 1990…

Why is a tripod essential: Because blur due to lens movement is inevitable at any shutter speed slower than 1/1000 sec., and because it promotes greater care in composition. Handholding is strictly for dead photographers: A human pulse beat will cause 200 microns (about 0.008 inch) displacement for 1/10th second. Assuming a shutter speed of 1/250th sec., this movement alone will cause a 22% loss of resolution with a system that is otherwise capable of reproducing 100 lines-per-mm (lpm). And at a shutter speed of 1/125th sec., this performance would degrade to only 53 lpm—a 47% waste of what you purchased. (Refer John B. Williams: Image Clarity, page 191.)

And one would strive to use the finest resolution film that was then available. In the 1980s that was clearly Kodachrome—most certainly not Tri-X.

[It wasn't a resolution test. It was to see if people can tell the difference between Leica lenses and others in normal everyday shooting. And how often do photographers using hand cameras use tripods in broad daylight? --Mike]

[Keith B.]

As a side note to your lens comparison print adventure, I remember that in the 1979-82 time frame, when I had access to Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Contax RTS and Leica M lenses (not all at the exact same time, but in close temporal proximity), when the black and white negatives were developed and then hung up to dry, you could tell which lenses had been used just by looking at the dry but still hanging negatives; Leica-shot negs were distinct from Zeiss. L and Z each were instantly distinguishable from the Nikon, Canon, or Olympus negs. Looking at the little monochrome 135 negs with the naked eye obviously doesn't compare "sharpness" or detail rendering, but rather displays the different overall tonal contrast delivered by each.

[j]

Mr. Millier's lengthy comment and your reply both strike excellent points.

As a postscript, my experience has been that, using good care and modern post-processing software, the most recent Olympus/OMD M4/3 cameras using the 20MP sensor (OM-D, E-M1, Pen-F) can produce exhibition quality prints up to about 18x24 inches or better under a broad variety of circumstances. Older cameras with 16MP M4/3 sensors don't do quite as well.

Although I occasionally use Pentax APS-C and FF cameras, I find that M4/3 seems to better fit certain subjects and more spontaneous styles of photography and hence is carried and used more often.

Static and more contemplative subjects seem to benefit from the slow, methodical approach required to use large-format film cameras.

To some extent, given more or less equivalent image quality under many circumstances, it's more a matter of using the equipment that best fits the subject, process and mood.

[Herman Krieger]

an early digital camera, the Nikon D40 with 6.1 MP, was adequate for the Internet, and prints of 11x14.

[Tony]

I’m primarily a film guy, but I’ve used APS-C systems for years for product photography, and finally “upgraded” to full frame this year - albeit to a (now very old) Leica M240.

As a general rule, I agree with your stance that most sensor and lens combos are… fine? I don’t think many photographers are really pushing what any system can do, regardless of sensor size.

The places where it really makes a difference are less about the image quality and more about the workflow, I find.

For instance, APS-C annoyed me for “casual” use, as the lenses I had racked up for 35mm film bodies didn’t have the same field of view on an APS-C camera. On the M240, they behave exactly the same as they do on my film rangefinders; it’s nice shooting the 15mm Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar on digital and actually getting the full field of view instead of a ~21mm equivalent (if memory serves).

On the other hand, my partner swaps between Nikon film bodies and a m4/3 Olympus body where the "crop factor" is even more pronounced. Why? Because she likes photographing birds. There, the crop factor works in her favour.

Of course, if you prefer cropping after the fact, you want to go the other way - start with the bigger sensor, crop down later. (Hell, that’s the whole modus operandi of Leica’s Q cameras.) Cropping down from an m4/3 sensor will become noticeable much sooner than cropping from a “full frame” one.

But, yeah… workflow. Horses for courses, and it’s good to have options.

[Gary Nylander]

I have noticed that pretty there is not a lot of difference between APS-C, and FF cameras. I have been using a Nikon D850 as my main camera for several years now. One lens that I use on the camera is an older Nikkor 35mm PC lens, I use the shift perspective to compose my pictures and I do not know of another lens that is relatively small and works the same way. It sure is like using a large format camera lens, I have to stop it down manually for the desired ƒ stop. Yes the D850 is a pretty big camera compared to other smaller and lighter digital cameras out there in today's market. My current kit with a tripod and a couple of other lenses, 50mm and 85mm is much lighter than my 4x5 kit, back then I only carried enough film for about 16 shots in a day.

[Christer Almqvist]

When I moved from film Leicas to digital I went for Sony because (with a low cost adapter) I could use my Leica lenses on the Sony bodies. All those highly acclaimed Leica lenses have now been exchanged for Sony G and GM lenses. Comparisons between the two lens brands were quick and easy and the results unambiguous. Did I forget to mention "autofocus"?

I selected a full format Sony because the body size was not that much larger than Micro 4/3 or APS and the latter ones were not pocketable anyway. (My Leica M6 and 7 were not pocketable either.)

About printing; I have an Epson SC-P 700 and I am amazed how much real detail this printer can lay down on paper. As much as my rather recent 16-inch MacBook Pro can show on the screen. Provided, of course, I print high quality TIFFs and not JPEGs. And yes, printing takes about three times longer, but is is worth the wait.

I am slowly coming to my point. All recent digital cameras are more than good enough for most of us. If we have used film cameras for years, then we must learn new tricks especially if our aim was and is a wide tonal range and immaculate resolution.

- No need to shoot at ISO 100; sensors have "finer grain equivalent" than film.
- Forget about filling the frame because cropping no longer decreases IQ as it used to do.
- Stop shooting hand held at 1/15 second; the sensor is much more unforgiving to camera shake than film was.
- Depth of field is a different experience compared to film. Difficult to pinpoint.
- No need for limited range zooms, crop instead and save weight.

[Robert Roaldi]

Thanks very much for these last two posts. I shoot Olympus m4/3s, never saw the need for bigger sensors. But lately, fuelled in part by G.A.S. I'm sure, I've been looking at buying a 24 to 36 mpix DSLR with a couple of f/1.8 primes, say 50 and 28, for slow landscape or other similar work. One driving reason for this is that I can buy such a body + 2 lens collection for about $1000 Canadian, so it seems kind of a shame not to. That's obviously G.A.S. talking.

Another reason is that my heart really belongs to Pentax and I was looking at a system consisting of a K-1 with a couple of Pentax Limited lenses. Obviously, that would not be a rational purchase.

Having read what you and others have to say. it's not clear to me how much I would gain by buying a new full-frame system. One responder mentioned low-light work, but the additional work involved in getting good low-light results from m4/3s, by perhaps stacking multiple shots or other practices, is a feature to me. Since this is just fun for me, there's no reason that my priorities should match anyone else's.

I have even had the occasional urge to re-buy an old 4/3s Olympus E-620 just to force myself to live with the limitations of its ancient 12 mpix sensor.

[Well, just wanting something is a good enough reason to get it. YOLO. And some things we just have to "demystify." Give yourself six months with the FF camera, then sell it. Then you'll know what it's like and remember the experience, and if you divide the money you lose into 365 divided by 2 (where the heck is the division sign on the keyboard??), it probably won't turn out to cost you much every day. --Mike the camera & lens purchase enabler]

[Eric Rose]

Give an accomplished artist any camera and he or she will create outstanding images that speak to their artistic truth. In my experience photographers spend about 90% of their time obsessing over equipment and maybe 10% honing their ability to produce an expressive image or series of images that work together. Just my two bits.

[Herman Krieger]

Ansel Adams: "For fully half of the photography done in the world, a Kodak or Ansco box camera would be adequate."

[Bryan Geyer]

Mike—You ask…"how often do photographers using hand cameras use tripods in broad daylight?" Well, in the case of widely known and published nature photographers—e.g., John Shaw, Art Wolfe, Galen Rowell, Ansel Adams, David Muench, Frans Lanting, Larry West, John Gerlach, et al—the correct answer is almost always.

How do I happen to know this? Basically because nature photography has been my exclusive photographic interest since the late 1960's, so I've become acquainted with some of these people through personal contact (conferences, workshops, etc.), plus I've read a good many of their books and magazine articles. Indeed, it was my intense interest in nature photography that prompted me to initiate the company Really Right Stuff in 1990.

Do appreciate that nature photography is a very popular specialty, with wide general appeal and lots of commercial exposure. If you'd like to learn more about the scope of nature photography—a specialty that encompasses the use of optics ranging from long telephotos to macro focus closeup lenses—I'd recommend any of the numerous books written by John Shaw. He was an inspiration to me, and he's simply a great nature photographer.

[He is. The third-to-last post on his sadly now moribund blog shows an old picture of him standing on a stepladder in a creek, using a giant tripod. And, for very closeup and very long lenses, yes. So, point taken. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. --Mike

https://www.johnshawphoto.com/before-there-were-drones/ ]

[Patrick Perez]

Mike wondered '(where the heck is the division sign on the keyboard??),'

Ironically, it is the un-shifted question mark key.

Patrick

[Thank you! --Mike]

[Ken]

"And how often do photographers using hand cameras use tripods in broad daylight?"

The serious answer to that seemingly snarky question is: "it depends on what you shoot." My most frequently used lens, by a wide margin, is a 500 mm tele. I use it with a tripod the vast majority of the time, and I use it exclusively in daylight. I don't know what you mean by a "hand camera," but I would think my DSLR qualifies as one since I can also shoot it handheld.

[Hugh]

I agree with Keith B.

For a while I shot with a Canon F1N and FD 85/1.8 and Leica M2 and 90mm Summicron, both on HP5. Easy to pick the Leica negatives when hanging up to dry, and not from exposure errors. Micro contrast possibly?

Once I had shown her the difference, my non-photographer wife could do it with 100% accuracy as well.

More a case of each company making a few outstanding lenses, not overall Leica superiority I think.

[Stephen S.]

Steve Biro saying Sigma lenses make strict use of Leica glass unnecessary is more accurate than most people probably know: if you track down the patents, an awful lot of lenses in the L mount and Micro 4/3 mount that have the Leica name on them are actually designed and built by Sigma.