About the "Leica Look"

[thephotofather]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve Huff recently had his own great review on the Leica D-Lux 5 and then a guest blogger that wrote about he Leica "Look"

 

This is where I really get lost.

 

Now I just purchased the Panasonic LX5, a camera I really enjoy. I'm about to purchase, after I sell a number of items so I can afford it, an all Black X1. Knowing full well of the AF limitations on the x1 it is still said by most people to have that Leica "Look"

 

Now, My LX-5 has has a Leica Lens (awesome I may add), the upcoming DMC-5 has the Leica lens of course, both ASPH but what would give the X1 that Leica "Look" these these others, both with Leica Lenses do not?

 

Yes, I know they (the X1) are hand-crafted in Germany but I can see no reason at all why that would give the camera that specific look. It must be the lens. It's not the sensor because the CMOS is used in dozens of cameras now.

 

I have to think that the Software in this specific camera is "tuned" to the CMOS chip and the lens combo. And if that's true, why not do that to the DMC-5? Because that would sell more DMC-5's then X1's that may have a higher profit margin?

 

There has to be a technical reason and it's not being hand-crafting in Germany.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want this camera, it looks wonderful, but just what is it?

 

Thanks

[earleygallery]

What is 'the Leica look' anyway?

 

I'm not sure I can answer that, it could be the style of photography that a rangefinder camera leans one to, it could be the rendition of the older classic lenses - the Leica glow - or the high contrast pin sharp rendition of the latest ASPH lenses. It could be the natural to warm colour palette.

 

I would suggest that the larger X1 sensor, with the lens shot wide open, gives the out of focus 'bokeh' which you simply can't get with a small sensor digicam in normal use.

 

But I'm not sure it's a 'Leica look'.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[John Thawley]

James: I think you're on the right track.

 

In the end, I think it's the performance of the glass.. and to capture all the glass can do, you need a full size sensor (for the most part).

 

As a rule, fast lenses aren't always the sharpest lenses... especially wide open. But Leica doesn't accept the rules. Hence the expense.... and the results.

 

To get the speed and image quality attainable with Leica glass (and any glass) it's a costly process.

 

So.... when you put a fast Leica prime on a large sensor or film that optimizes its capabilities, you're going to get smooth bokeh and image quality corner-to-corner and detail where it counts.

 

What makes a Stradivarius sound like a Stradivarius?

Edited October 17, 2010 by John Thawley

[Dan States]

The only Leica "look" is that of excellent technical quality relative to the era the lens was created. There is no specific image attribute, as proven by the fact the people have said the 1st generation Summicron has the look and so does the latest generation Summilux ASPH. The Summar has the "look" and so does the Summicron M 28. They couldn't be more different in rendering, contrast and flare control. They are all lenses, but that's where the similarities stop.

 

All Leica lenses are good/great in their time, but the do not share any particular rendering beyond that. Even color rendition varies widely, as opposed to Zeiss lenses which have been extremely consistent. In fact, if there is a "look" in photography it would be in Zeiss lenses and it IS by design. Take a look at the rich collection of documents on the Zeiss website and you will see they have had a very consistent concept of image quality and in particular flare control.

 

I'm not saying one brand is better or worse, just that the placebo effect is the main reason we talk about the "look".

 

Best wishes

Dan

[Dan States]

Steve Huff recently had his own great review on the Leica D-Lux 5 and then a guest blogger that wrote about he Leica "Look"

 

This is where I really get lost.

 

Now I just purchased the Panasonic LX5, a camera I really enjoy. I'm about to purchase, after I sell a number of items so I can afford it, an all Black X1. Knowing full well of the AF limitations on the x1 it is still said by most people to have that Leica "Look"

 

Now, My LX-5 has has a Leica Lens (awesome I may add), the upcoming DMC-5 has the Leica lens of course, both ASPH but what would give the X1 that Leica "Look" these these others, both with Leica Lenses do not?

 

Yes, I know they (the X1) are hand-crafted in Germany but I can see no reason at all why that would give the camera that specific look. It must be the lens. It's not the sensor because the CMOS is used in dozens of cameras now.

 

I have to think that the Software in this specific camera is "tuned" to the CMOS chip and the lens combo. And if that's true, why not do that to the DMC-5? Because that would sell more DMC-5's then X1's that may have a higher profit margin?

 

There has to be a technical reason and it's not being hand-crafting in Germany.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want this camera, it looks wonderful, but just what is it?

 

Thanks

 

By the way, to be more specific to the X1, that look is QUALITY. It's also available in the D700 and a few other top end DSLR's. Rich color and the ability to control depth of field are crucial elements here. What makes the X1 unique is that it has these qualities in such a small package.

[MPJMP]

IMHO, the "Leica look" comes from a lot of things, but mostly the Leica M series lenses. The lenses are designed for a rangefinder body, and are therefore a lot smaller and without some of the design compromises found in SLR lenses. They are typically prime lenses (not zooms) with relatively wide maximum apertures available. All of these factors come together to create lenses with unique visual signatures. That's not to say that other cameras or lenses can't get a similar look, but it is inherently native to the M lenses and rangefinder system. The closer a camera or lens comes to that signature, the more it has the "Leica look," at least in my opinion.

 

Based on the images I have seen, the X1 is capable of getting a lot closer to that look than the D-LUX series (which takes excellent photos in its own right). This is probably due to the lens design in combination with the larger APS-C sensor. The D-LUX sports a zoom lens paired with a much smaller sensor. The resulting visual signature is different and less similar to what can potentially be produced with a Leica M rangefinder

 

Other things that can contribute to the "Leica look" are non-technical and come from the photographer, i.e. a "documentary" style.

[thephotofather]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By the way, to be more specific to the X1, that look is QUALITY. It's also available in the D700 and a few other top end DSLR's. Rich color and the ability to control depth of field are crucial elements here. What makes the X1 unique is that it has these qualities in such a small package.

 

I have no disagreement that the D700 and other DSLR's have the look of quality but it is, to me at least, night and day a "different look" then most Leica's I"ve seen photographs from and have made.

 

So, while we all can agree that the Leica products are awesome quality (the one's made by Leica anyway) I'm trying to figure out how that "look" is produced.

 

Rolleiflex/cord was a very, very well made camera as well, a completely different "look" then anything else as well.

 

But there is, IMO, a secret sauce in the Leica's line that is made by them.

The example I speak of here is the X1. It is said, dispite it's shortcomings like AF speed etc, that it has the Leica Look and that's a Elem lens.

 

I figure I'll work with it's power-points and I don't have the need really for Fast AF so it really seems right for me. I'm just waiting for the All black (NOT the Ostrich leather) ver. to come out in a few days.

Thanks for joining in.

Tom

[phancj]

To me the "Leica look" is defined by good sharpness, clean and pleasant tones, nice bokeh and most important it must come out of a Leica camera. See, my nikkor with some prime lens like the 85mm 1.4 produces images of this quality but it is not the "Leica look" because it is from a nIkon. On the other hand my X1 produces images legitimately called the "Leica look" because it is a Leica.

[Aviator]

I don´t think there is a spezific "Leica Look".

 

But there is definitve a kind of seeing through a rangefnder which is different from working wirh a SLR or a P and S camera.

 

It is this kind aif perspective which creates a look, a feel in the pictures.

 

Paired with high quality lenses and the popularity of the Leica Ms under professional photographers in the past this starts the mythos of the "Leica Look".

 

(And the vietnam war started the "Nikon look")

Edited October 19, 2010 by Aviator

[thephotofather]

You know Aviator, that's a really good point. But I don't think it's 100 percent the "Leica Look IMO.

 

I use my dad's old Yashica GSN 35 Electro with a 35mm 1.7 lens. An amazing look to it. Rangefinder, wonderful DOF etc... actually close to the Leica Look so you do have some good points there, but just not exact. But is any camera exactly like the next??? Of course not, so, again, you make a very valid point.

 

Thanks

Tom

[thephotofather]

By the way, sorry, I should have posted this in my OP.

 

The Leica Look…Comments? Thoughts? by Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[delander †]

I think the Leica look is mainly down to lens design with the minimum of lens elements, the choice of glass formula, the accuracy of element geometry and lens coatings. Leica has many many years in designing lenses.

 

In general Leica primes are being compared to Japanese zooms with lot of elements and maximum apertures f2.8 and smaller. It is not a real contest.

 

Jeff

[johnwolf]

Tom,

 

If by the Leica Look you mean glow and 3-dimensionality, you might enjoy this digital M thread on GetDPI. Plenty of nice examples in this enjoyable thread.

 

Interesting that some pictures show none of that, despite the Leica gear. You can't discount good lighting and strong processing skills. Some just know how to get the most from those lenses.

 

John

[earleygallery]

I think what this thread proves is that there's no such thing as the 'Leica Look' that can be defined as such, but you know it when you see it!

 

Other cameras/lenses are capable of producing a 'Leica look' as well - yes or no?

[John Thawley]

I think what this thread proves is that there's no such thing as the 'Leica Look' that can be defined as such, but you know it when you see it!

 

Other cameras/lenses are capable of producing a 'Leica look' as well - yes or no?

 

Well, if you want to expand on that conversation, there's probably software that can recreate the Leica look.

 

Hmmmmm... a Leica plug-in.

[aesop]

I think what this thread proves is that there's no such thing as the 'Leica Look' that can be defined as such, but you know it when you see it!

 

Other cameras/lenses are capable of producing a 'Leica look' as well - yes or no?

 

 

...precisely - anyone who disputes this should embark on "blind" tests and see how they pan out. This should go some way towards determining how much waffle this topic is about. OP, you do your current equipment no justice - the LX-5 (and indeed, the DMC-5) are more than capable of creating the so-called look. IMHO.

 

If you feel you need to buy a Leica, so be it. Enough of the hype.

[UliWer]

Steve Huff recently had his own great review on the Leica D-Lux 5 and then a guest blogger that wrote about he Leica "Look"

 

This is where I really get lost.

 

...

 

As I don't know what was written in the blog I may be missing the point, but I think it's quite simple:

 

If you let someone look at the X1, who hasn't seen it before and ask him by whom the camera is produced, he'll most probably say: Leica.

 

The proportions between length, width and height of the X1 and the rounded edges are almost exactly those of the first Leica. The metal top and bottom plates, the "leathering", positions of release button and time wheel and of the lens are very similar as well. It looks like an "old" Leica. This is just the "Leica look" which was imitated by russian copies and the early Canons, as well as there was the "Contax look" which was imitated by the early Nikons, or the "Rolleiflex look" which was imitated by quite a few other producers.

 

It's only the "Leica look" which stays today and causes even Steven Jobs to compare the iPhone to a Leica.

[earleygallery]

Shorly shome mishtake?

 

We are talking about the look of the images here!

[John Thawley]

...precisely - anyone who disputes this should embark on "blind" tests and see how they pan out. This should go some way towards determining how much waffle this topic is about. OP, you do your current equipment no justice - the LX-5 (and indeed, the DMC-5) are more than capable of creating the so-called look. IMHO.

 

If you feel you need to buy a Leica, so be it. Enough of the hype.

 

I won't say you're wrong. Certainly a double blind taste test would bring most to their knees in the effort.

 

But there is a look... and you do know it when you see it. Sure, maybe other cameras can attain "the look," but you can't deny it's there... or why would other camera's work toward it.

 

There are historic black and whites circulating that ooze with the glow attributed to Leica. And, there are many, many images produced by capable Leica shooters that simply "have the look." Just because it defies definition, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is no different than trying to determine if you see the color red optically the same as I see the color red. You can't determine that. We both see something and we both refer to it as red.

 

Therefore, one viewer may have a more acute attention to detail and definition than the next. One may see things in a different sequence or order of importance. One person cannot determine what the next person sees.

 

So... in my opinion, Leica does have a visual DNA within it's ability to report an image. Just like a 35mm prime as a look. Just like Tri-X has a look and Kodachrome...

 

And I'll ask again, what makes a Stradivarius sound like a Stradivarius? I assure you it's lost on me. But I also assure you it's not lost on Isaac Perlman.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aesop]

 

...<snip>I won't say you're wrong. Certainly a double blind taste test would bring most to their knees in the effort.

 

So... in my opinion, Leica does have a visual DNA within it's ability to report an image. Just like a 35mm prime as a look. Just like Tri-X has a look and Kodachrome...

 

And I'll ask again, what makes a Stradivarius sound like a Stradivarius? I assure you it's lost on me. But I also assure you it's not lost on Isaac Perlman.

 

 

...John, the "subjective" element of your argument means we can only state our opinions on this matter. From my side of the fence, as of today, there is no unique Leica "look".

 

Lens design has always been about tight tolerances and trade-offs. Leica does a pretty good job with lenses, particularly at full aperture. However, the "glow" to which you allude resulted from aberrations in the lenses (coma, anyone?) in an era long before computers started playing a major part in the production process. Leica did not set out to create the glow - one does not set out to highlight one's imperfections. Incidentally, other leading manufacturers had lenses with the same phenomenon. In optical terms, it really sucks.

 

I will concede one minor point - Leica lenses of yore may have had a "look", but that cannot be said of lenses from the last 25 years or thereabouts. Materials and technique notwithstanding, computerisation has led to much more homogenisation in lens design/production. Oh, and I agree with you on Kodachrome.

 

Per my previous post, I would be more than happy to witness a blind test that makes a nonsense of my opinion.

 

Re: Perlman, it is my view there is no such thing as a Stradivarius "sound", scientifically or otherwise. A Stradivarius is a beautifully crafted instrument capable of producing exquisite sounds. The same can be said of other top-end violins.

 

With specific regard to the unique qualities (i.e. a distinguishable "sound") of a Stradivarius, in citing Perlman, I can only assume you are aware of the well-documented blind tests and scientific experiments amongst other leading lights that have long debunked any such theories or pretensions. The magic of a Stradivarius lies not in its "sound", but in its provenance.

 

Enough of the smoke and mirrors (or glow?). I rest.