About the "Leica Look"

[sfage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry to jump in on an unrelated theme but a Strad "does" have a particular sound. It is different than a Guaneri, and Amati or others.

 

When I was still into music composition, I went to a small gathering of violinists at the Banff Centre. They were allowed to play a portion of a movement on the instrument of their choosing. The Guaneri, Amati and Zoltan Szekely's Strad. While the Strad had not been played in some time (Szekely was in his nineties and no longer playing), the 1721 Cremona was "asleep". It needed to be played constantly to wake it up. But, believe me, even though she was "asleep", she could definitely still sing.

 

But, what was much more interesting was the accompanying $200k box of violin bows... and yes, you read that right. A two hundred thousand dollar box of bows.

 

Same violin, different bow, completely different sound.

 

So, if you think you've got a "look" then you probably do, and that's all you need to worry about.

[aesop]

Sorry to jump in on an unrelated theme but a Strad "does" have a particular sound. It is different than a Guaneri, and Amati or others.

 

When I was still into music composition, I went to a small gathering of violinists at the Banff Centre. They were allowed to play a portion of a movement on the instrument of their choosing. The Guaneri, Amati and Zoltan Szekely's Strad. While the Strad had not been played in some time (Szekely was in his nineties and no longer playing), the 1721 Cremona was "asleep". It needed to be played constantly to wake it up. But, believe me, even though she was "asleep", she could definitely still sing.

 

But, what was much more interesting was the accompanying $200k box of violin bows... and yes, you read that right. A two hundred thousand dollar box of bows.

 

Same violin, different bow, completely different sound.

 

So, if you think you've got a "look" then you probably do, and that's all you need to worry about.

 

 

...very well, sfage. But would that peculiarity lead you (unlike the leading lights in that field) to success in a blind test? This is the thrust of my posts - that if you are knowledgeable and set out to identify the output but cannot, then there is nothing unique about the output.

[Advertisement]

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

[sfage]

I believe so. A violinist, more certainly.

 

As it pertains to glass, I find quite a difference in "pop" between my Schneider on the Rollei and my Leica lenses. And, the Bronica, and Leica? Most certainly.

[John Thawley]

...very well, sfage. But would that peculiarity lead you (unlike the leading lights in that field) to success in a blind test? This is the thrust of my posts - that if you are knowledgeable and set out to identify the output but cannot, then there is nothing unique about the output.

 

I spent years going around with this argument in high end audio equipment. People telling me what I can or cannot hear. I know what I see and I know what I hear.

 

As for your blind test theory, there is no such thing. The minute you introduce the idea that someone is being tested you alter the equation. None of this discussion takes place in a vacuum. If you don't see it or hear it, I'm guessing you're ok with that. Likewise, if I see it or hear it, feel free to think me stupid or ignorant.... either way for me it is bliss.

 

I'd venture a guess you're not a fan of Riedel stemware or Illy espresso?

[Dan States]

I still believe that the most definite thing we can say about the "look" is that Leica lenses tend to look really good...but not in the same ways. Some have low contrast and others high. Some have neutral color rendition and others quite a color cast. Some look great in the corners and others look blurry. Some are flare resistant and others have flare. This goes on and on of course.

 

What IS consistent about Leica lenses is that when compared to their contemporaries they make excellent looking images, albeit with different mediums and techniques. A Summar was an excellent lens in its day and still looks great on black and white film if processed properly. If someone were to tell me that a Summar and a modern Summilux have any similarities of rendition whatsoever I'd have to refer them to an eye specialist.

 

All Leica lenses are good, but they are all quite different.

[aesop]

I spent years going around with this argument in high end audio equipment. People telling me what I can or cannot hear. I know what I see and I know what I hear.

 

As for your blind test theory, there is no such thing. The minute you introduce the idea that someone is being tested you alter the equation. None of this discussion takes place in a vacuum. If you don't see it or hear it, I'm guessing you're ok with that. Likewise, if I see it or hear it, feel free to think me stupid or ignorant.... either way for me it is bliss.

 

I'd venture a guess you're not a fan of Riedel stemware or Illy espresso?

 

 

...John, it sounds like I did not do a good job of articulating my position on this matter.

 

I neither stated nor suggested that nobody can detect any differences that may exist. My point is that, as a cognoscente (or at the very least someone who claims to be "in the know"), if you claim there is a Leica "look", you should then be able to detect the relevant Leica shots from a plethora of images.

 

In other words, the specific attributes which make your chosen equipment unique should be manifested in the output. Otherwise there is nothing unique about said equipment, insofar as the output is concerned. My assumption here is that the cognoscente possesses the requisite knowledge for proper differentiation.

 

Your "subjective" point still holds (i.e. not everyone may be able to detect), so I am not telling you what you can see or hear. However, if you claim to be able to note a difference, it follows then that the difference should make it distinguishable from within a random selection. Hence my agreement on Kodachrome.

 

There are fine products. And there is hype. Re: Reidel, Illy and my predilections, please refer to the above (or my previous posts). I rest.

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back onto the topic of the "Leica Look", it is actually fairly well defined for me personally. Having shot Canon L-glass for 3-4yrs before jumping down the rabbit hole, I have developed a feel of the drawing characteristics from both systems. After shooting mostly an M8 with an assortment of M-primes and going back to my L-lenses on the rare occassion, the "Leica look" is quite apparent when I process images from the same shoot that consists of both systems.

 

What is the "leica look"? I think there's several major aspects...

 

1) Leica M-primes tend to have very little distortion, even on ultra-wide lenses. Comparing the images from the same focal length between M and L lenses, it is readily apparent that the images shot through the L lenses show a much larger amount of distortion. Because the human is essentially distortion free, images shot with M lenses tend to have a more natural feel to them. This is especially true when there are straight lines or faces in the image. However this is not the only contributing factor and even when you "remove" all the distortion from the L-glass in post processing, the M-glass still show some unique qualities.

 

2) M-glass tend to have very uniform sharpness across the entire frame. This means that images shot with M-glass, when focused properly on a flat field, will tend to have equal sharpness across the entire image. This is not the case with L-lenses with the exception of a few super-telephoto lenses like the Canon 300/2.8 IS. When comparing images from M-glass with lenses from other manufacturess in the normal to wide angle shots, this is one of the differences that give the M-lenses a unique look. On the whole, from my own personal experience, when shot at f/5.6-f/8 most lenses perform very well, even out to the edges at small apertures. But when you start shooting at wider apertures (less than f/2.8), the image sharpness for most lenses fall apart near the edges/corners. The ability for M-glass to maintain a high level of sharpness even when shot at large apertures with shallow depth of field, this gives the images a somewhat unique look.

 

3) Sharpness is the third major difference. Note that this is different from uniformity in sharpness described above. Overall sharpness from M-lenses (at least the ones that I've shot with) have been exceedingly good. In general, the lenses out-resolve the M8 sensor. The same cannot be said about most L-glass with very few exceptions on the 5D2 or even the 30D for that matter.

 

4) Bokeh would be one other difference that I notice from time to time but since I don't shoot wide open very often, this is less apparent to me at least. Nonetheless, when I do shoot at wide aperture with shallow depth of field, the creamyness of the bokeh definitely makes the images look somewhat (but not a whole lot) different when compared to some of the tele-photo lenses from Canon (i.e. 70-200/2.8IS and 300/2.8IS). Where the difference occurs is when comparing the wide angle (35mm) or 28/2.8 ASPH on the M8 with the canon 16-35/2.8 on a 5D2. From these shots, the bokeh of the 28/2.8 ASPH actually looks more pleasing and smooth when compared to the canon images.

 

 

On the topic of Strads and instruments, a lot of the character, voice, or tembre of an instrument also has to do with the "touch" of the musician. Take the world reknown cellist Yo-Yo Ma for instance. He plays the Stradivari Davidoff along with a few other very beatifully sounding cellos and records with the cello that suit a piece or style the best. Yet, when I hear the cello played by Yo-Yo Ma, it's instantly recognizable because of his unique touch. I noticed the same effect when I use to play the violin myself. The tembre that I got out of my violin was nice but I wouldn't consider it to be beautiful. Yet, when I heard my violin teacher play the same instrument for the first time, there was an immediate difference in the tone of the instrument. What this means is that unless you have the same person playing two instruments with the exact same touch, it's almost pointless to be comparing different instruments.

 

When you factor out "touch", there can be very noticable difference between instruments. Much of this has to do with the choice of materials used, the thickness and shape of the instruments. Although in a blind test as a listener, it would be hard for me to tell the difference between steel string guitars made with different woods, as a player (even when blind folded), it would be pretty easy for me to pick out what kind of wood a guitar is made from as well as the body type. This has much to do with knowing both the "touch" and the sound associated with the "touch". The reason why it's much more difficult to pick out an instrument by simply listening is because you cannot associate the tembre of an instrument with a certain "touch". As experienced musicians go, they generally have a specific tone in mind when they play an instrument and so they will use the most appropriate touch to achieve that tone. So even though you can have two very different sounding instruments by nature, say one is very bright while another is very mellow, you can get a very similar tone/tembre with both instruments by using different techiques. This is why it's difficult to do a blind listening test.

 

 

As for audio equipment, I definitely notice differences whether it be microphones, preamps or other equipment and I can probably tell you what different mics will sound like on different voices or instruments. But it's all meaningless unless you have a pretty clear idea of other contributing factors that can also colour the signal/sound.

 

In the end, what you hear is the sum of all processes in a signal chain from the source (such as a voice) through the microphone which controls which frequencies are emphasized as well as how sensitive it is to transients, through the preamplifier that can colour the sound with pleasant odd harmonics or produce distasteful even harmonics or leave the signal passing through clean as a whistle. Once through, the signal can still be adjusted by an equalizer, the dynamics can be compressed, the phase can be fiddled with and other effects can be added. After all is said and done, passing this signal through a power amplifier can again add more character to the sound or leave it unchanged and then it is sent through the speaker which can modify the frequency and transient response of the sound. Unless you have a good idea of how each of these components affect the sound, it's really hard to say "uh huh, I hear something and it's because of this one particular thing".

 

 

All in all, it comes down to knowing the variables in the entire processing chain and it is only when you have an intimate knowledge of this entire processing chain that you can look at an output and have a good understanding of the original input.

[adan]

Is there a "Leica look" - I think there are in fact several Leica looks. But it is complex, because a given photographer or group of photographers may have a similar "look" as produced by their preference for tonal renditions, off-hand compositions, processing, films, etc. - and if they all happen to use Leicas, it is unclear if what we are seeing is a "Leica" look, or a "Leica photographers" look.

 

Among the Leica looks:

 

What I would call the "crisp" or "dry" look, which is characterized by very strong edge contrast and resolution combined with a moderate overall contrast. It shows up in the work of

 

Jeanloup Sieff: Jeanloup Sieff, Partie 1 | nikohk

Ralph Gibson: Ralph Gibson and ralph gibson | PicsDigger

 

and in some works by Danny Lyon: http://www.jamesharrisgallery.com/Artists/Danny%20Lyon/images/line_800.jpg

H C-B: En Brie. Cartier-Bresson, Henri. Posters, Poster, cheap poster, buy posters, movie posters, sports posters

and Elliott Erwitt: http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/sunpaintedpicture/erwitt3.jpg

 

Ironically, Sieff was using a Schneider-designed 21 f/3.4 - so one might also call it the "Schneider look".

 

The "Leica glow" is something rather different, and in fact I think again there are several imaging characteristics that themselves are different but get called the "glow" by someone who hopes that that is what they are seeing.

 

There is plain old aspherical aberration, which does "glowy" things to the bokeh as well as spilling light into the sharp parts of the image - see sample from 35 pre-ASPH f/1.4 (Bridegroom) below. Also a tendency in other non-ASPH Summiluxes and some pre-ASPH Summicrons.

 

Then there is the effect or impact already mentioned, of lenses that are still very sharp wide-open - while also producing smooth "bokeh" that seems to glow contrasted with the crisp details. Common to 35/50 Summicrons and the ASPH 35 f/1.4.

 

And then - related to the "Leica look" - there is the effect of some lenses that have a low macro-contrast while also having crisp micro-contrast. Which give a brilliance or to details while also holding on to a long "glowing" tonal range in whites. Characteristic of the Mandler-era wide-angles (21, 28, 35 f/2 v.4) - see sample from 21 pre-ASPH f/2.8 (Conquistador) below.

 

To sum up - for me the Leica "glow" is still undefined. I'm not sure what other people mean when they bring it up, absent examples. There is definitely a Leica "look", however, from some lenses. Generally either older (c. 1980) designs or newer designs with extreme apertures.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 30, 2010 by adan

[sfage]

...very well, sfage. But would that peculiarity lead you (unlike the leading lights in that field) to success in a blind test? This is the thrust of my posts - that if you are knowledgeable and set out to identify the output but cannot, then there is nothing unique about the output.

 

What's a "leading light"? An academic? I was an academic for 14 years. I met a lot of people with Ph.Ds in performance that can't play the piano.

 

I started being a musician when I was 12. I am now 46. That makes 34 years experience.

 

I'll stand up to a curtain test any time... god knows orchestras do, daily. That's how we "try" to defeat sexism. When you walk in for an audition, you're behind a curtain. And yes, it's not just your performance and voicing, it's also your tone production.

[thephotofather]

What a nice bunch of replies. Mostly civil also, rare on the net.

 

I'm the op, and I'm enjoying this, thank you for you time and mostly well thought out ops.

Does anyone see a 3D "look" as well.

 

P.s. I also most times noticed a sim look like this when I shot the canon 135mm f/2 prime L glass. I have the nikon 105 with is pretty sweet as well but I think that L 135 was the finest Portait lens I've ever used in my life.

 

Thais again and good health to you all

 

Very best

Tom

Edited October 30, 2010 by thephotofather

[adan]

"Does anyone see a 3D "look" as well."

 

Ah, the "3D" look...

 

I'll digress briefly - the human visual system (the eye, plus all the processing power in the visual cortex of the brain) uses many techniques in figuring out the 3D universe around it. What is far, what is near, what is flat, what has a 3D form. Among them: plain old parallax stereoscopy (comparing results from two eyes separated in space - what lines up and what doesn't); proprioception (sensing the position and extension of the fine muscles that steer the eyeballs and change the focal length of the eyes' lenses); tonal interpretation (is that circular shape a sphere with highlights and shading, or a flat disk with even tonality everywhere?).

 

In a 2D picture (excepting intentional stereo pictures), we lose the parallax and proprioception clues, leaving primarily tonality (read, tonal contrasts) as the remaining evidence of 3D form - and focus differences as a primary clue for spatial relationships. (Generally speaking, the real-world vision system does not register focus directly - unless one tries very hard, one just doen't see big Noctilux blur circles via the human eye - but indirectly by sensing how much muscle power is being used to focus the lens in the eyeball)

 

In my two example shots, for example, the face of the conquistador seems (to me) to show more "3D" FORM due to the higher contrast tones that shade and define the cheeks, nose, eyeballs, etc. than in my bridegroom. Also true for cylindrical shapes like the fingers. Both shots give some feel of 3D SPACE due to the progressively out-of-focus backgrounds.

 

Pretty much any lens can blur backgrounds and give a sense of 3D space - but to define FORM requires good definition and separation of otherwise similar (i.e. "mid") tones. A skin-colored shape (e.g. finger, cheek) that is reproduced with mostly the same tone top, bottom and center will look "flatter" and less 3D than a shape well-defined by strong tonal differences.

 

Incidentally - that is the real reason for painting warplanes light on the bottom and darker on the top for camouflage. Even a white-bottomed plane will show up dark against a light sky, so a pale belly hides nothing in that regard. But by "countershading" the tones contrary to normal overhead lighting, the 3D form of the plane is disguised. Same applies for nature's "painting" of animals and birds, which often have pale bellies to make their 3D forms less visible. Countershading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It was an artist and occasional photographer, Abbott Handerson Thayer, who first suggested countershading as a natural camouflage technique, later recommending it (and other techniques from nature) for military camouflage. DazzleThayer

 

If you want to hide 3D form, use a dull lens. If you want to reveal 3D form, use a lens with an excellent ability to define and separate delicate changes in contrast and light.

[phancj]

What a nice bunch of replies. Mostly civil also, rare on the net.

 

I'm the op, and I'm enjoying this, thank you for you time and mostly well thought out ops.

Does anyone see a 3D "look" as well.

 

P.s. I also most times noticed a sim look like this when I shot the canon 135mm f/2 prime L glass. I have the nikon 105 with is pretty sweet as well but I think that L 135 was the finest Portait lens I've ever used in my life.

 

Thais again and good health to you all

 

Very best

Tom

 

Dunno about the canon, but I have the nikon 105 and use it for macro only. For portraits it has reasonably good bokeh but images lack the 3D "pop" look. For that effect, I highly recommend you look at the Nikkor 85mm F1.4G (the newest nano lens). The bokeh is Leica-like creamy, and I assure you from wide open to f2.8 you will most certainly get sharp images, with beautiful bokeh and most importantly that 3D "pop" for most of your shots.

[John Thawley]

I got to thinking about this thread while driving the other day.

 

I don't think the Leica "look" is anything specific, technical or measurable. I think it's simply a "look."

 

I don't think all Leicas produce the "look" and I think there are other cameras that can also produce the "look."

 

What is the new car "smell?" What does "rich" coffee smell like? Define the "perfect" breast or "well turned" calve.

 

It's probably more of a generic "look" most likely assigned to rangefinder black and white film images that have a familiar consistent quality about them. Certainly all the technical and quality cues would be apparent and recognizable... but I really don't think it's anything more than that.

 

How does someone look "wealthy?" Yes you can outline some hints... but for the most part, it's a general sense that we draw our conclusions from.

 

I used to design Leica-like mens apparel. Same price range anyway. Cloth had this very same mystique about it. You could buy all wool... you could cashmere... you could buy superfines and gaberdines... and you could buy them in all ranges of price and quality. But at the top of the heap were the Zegna, the Cerrutti and the Loro Piana ... in the end, those in know knew how to tell the difference. And while you could list a list of technical reasons, in the end it came down to the drape and what is called "the hand." The "hand" is simply how the cloth would feel and fold between your thumb and forefinger. You either knew it or you didn't. Could I pick the best if blindfolded? Probably. Could I be fooled. Probably. But the point is, I couldn't make a list of characteristics and say, this is top-of-the-line piece goods. I ultimately had to rely on instinct and feel and the memory of what I knew as the "good stuff."

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that the term "Leica look" probably is somewhat more generic than what we want to believe. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

JT

[John Thawley]

Is there a "Leica look" - I think there are in fact several Leica looks. But it is complex, because a given photographer or group of photographers may have a similar "look" as produced by their preference for tonal renditions, off-hand compositions, processing, films, etc. - and if they all happen to use Leicas, it is unclear if what we are seeing is a "Leica" look, or a "Leica photographers" look.

 

Among the Leica looks:

 

What I would call the "crisp" or "dry" look, which is characterized by very strong edge contrast and resolution combined with a moderate overall contrast. It shows up in the work of

 

Jeanloup Sieff: Jeanloup Sieff, Partie 1 | nikohk

Ralph Gibson: Ralph Gibson and ralph gibson | PicsDigger

 

and in some works by Danny Lyon: http://www.jamesharrisgallery.com/Artists/Danny%20Lyon/images/line_800.jpg

H C-B: En Brie. Cartier-Bresson, Henri. Posters, Poster, cheap poster, buy posters, movie posters, sports posters

and Elliott Erwitt: http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j168/sunpaintedpicture/erwitt3.jpg

 

Ironically, Sieff was using a Schneider-designed 21 f/3.4 - so one might also call it the "Schneider look".

 

The "Leica glow" is something rather different, and in fact I think again there are several imaging characteristics that themselves are different but get called the "glow" by someone who hopes that that is what they are seeing.

 

There is plain old aspherical aberration, which does "glowy" things to the bokeh as well as spilling light into the sharp parts of the image - see sample from 35 pre-ASPH f/1.4 (Bridegroom) below. Also a tendency in other non-ASPH Summiluxes and some pre-ASPH Summicrons.

 

Then there is the effect or impact already mentioned, of lenses that are still very sharp wide-open - while also producing smooth "bokeh" that seems to glow contrasted with the crisp details. Common to 35/50 Summicrons and the ASPH 35 f/1.4.

 

And then - related to the "Leica look" - there is the effect of some lenses that have a low macro-contrast while also having crisp micro-contrast. Which give a brilliance or to details while also holding on to a long "glowing" tonal range in whites. Characteristic of the Mandler-era wide-angles (21, 28, 35 f/2 v.4) - see sample from 21 pre-ASPH f/2.8 (Conquistador) below.

 

To sum up - for me the Leica "glow" is still undefined. I'm not sure what other people mean when they bring it up, absent examples. There is definitely a Leica "look", however, from some lenses. Generally either older (c. 1980) designs or newer designs with extreme apertures.

 

While the second image "might" be more interesting, the first image is (to me) technically amazing. I can't get over how life-like (even though my vision doesn't produce a shallow depth of field) ... but I think that's just it. The shallow depth of field is doing brain work for me and pulling out the main subject. It's just an amazing black and white photo. Nice. Thanks.

[taildraggin]

I can't believe how few don't see the 'look'. With all the sharp and contrasty lenses available from other brands, it's harder to pick out and does not dominate pictures much of the time, but there is definitely a 'signature'.

 

The straight, crisp lines that BeeWee mentions, nice even tonality (Neopan can look like Tri-X), and the 'glow', which makes it look like there is a reflector in front of bare skin are the signatures I see with B&W prints.

 

With color, there is a coolness to even the brightest colors that reminds me of the light in northern europe - Holland and Germany. It has a diffusion - a glow - that limits the exuberance of colors a bit, but what is left is sublime. Some say it's 'refined', but I would call it 'reserved'. Think of Tahiti with Eindhoven's sunlight.

 

If you doubt, compare slideshows of searches on "nikon rvp" and "leica rvp" on flickr - RVP 50 because it is so wild - particularly red. (Ken Rockwell is a colorist and hates his M9's rendering, comparing it, negatively, to Kodak 100G - a film I like very much...) You'll definitely see the different corporate 'signatures' - and again, not every one, but about 30% will have it clearly.

 

- Charlie

 

PS - I resurrected my first camera this weekend, a Minolta XD-11 and tested the new seals with a roll of Tri-X and C-41. What a strong singature! Most contrast in a lens I've ever seen; I thought that I just mis-developed all the old prints I did in college. In color, there is also green emphasis, so the effect of the Rokkors heavy contrast and green. Very strange, very 70's and very distinctive. Nice and sharp, but it might take awhile to get used to it.

Edited November 10, 2010 by taildraggin

[rick_dykstra]

Here's a pic that I think shows the 'Leica Look'. Taken with a Leica, too. M9, 35 'lux Asph wide open. The backlighting was put on for the Chinese president, but I figured no one would mind if we enjoyed it too.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lct]

Nice image. Did you use the current 35/1.4?

[rick_dykstra]

It's the current 35 Lux Asph for me, but not the current one for Leica, or at least what they say is their current one. Mine is the 1994 (?) model, with the pressed aspherical lens. That is, the one with 'Asph' engraved on the lens ring, not 'Aspherical'. I have always enjoyed using this lens wide open with ambient light. The sharpness at the focal plane and the separation from the background is remarkable, no matter whether the background is near or far. But what is really interesting is how the background remains intact and recognisable. It isn't blown to bits with artifacts and mess - it's just beautifully blurred. :-)

 

We've dropped into a number of dealers as we've travelled around and all have commented on how the new 35 Lux is difficult to get. And not just that lens - some others that do the 'Leica look' can't be had, like the 50 Lux Asph. Even at the Leica Museum/Shop at Solms I was told, "I can show all of the lenses to you but I don't have all of them to sell to you." And just when I wanted to buy them all too! Sheesh ...

[lct]

I don't like much the previous 35/1.4 asph's bokeh personally. Too sharp for my taste. But your pic above is perfect to me. Thanks for sharing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Digitom]

Interesting thread. And one can see everyone gives a different definition of the "Leica look". I am also a fan of Leica but I think we should bring down the discussion to the fact, back from feelings: if there is a Leica look in fact - is there also a Canon Look? An Olympus Look? A Nikon Look.....? I think any photo shown in this thread could be also taken with many other HiEnd camera also! Because many good and very good pictures taken day by day in the world are not made with Leica equipment. One cannot point to a photo and say "that is typical Leica".

 

So I think in fact - the Leica Look is a combination of 3 things:

 

1st: the camera look.

Mostly reduced to the main elements, no gadgets, no toy functions. A clear and elegant design. Really typical Leica. Cameras, born to make photos, because there is no deflection.

 

 

2nd Picture quality.

Every camera Leica brings out is something special. Whatever the price is, normally the camera is an outstanding product in its class. One can see it looking at the S2, the M series, the former Digilix 2 and - also - for the "budget cameras" of the D-Line.

Frankly say, I cannot say this for the former C-Line and the V-Line (V-Lux 1 was very good, but the newer ones - well, there is no successor for V-Lux 1 in sight IMHO). But the target of Leica is normally NOT the mass market - even they cannot produce for the mass market due to the size of the factory- but I think they never wanted and never will. That is the difference compared to C./N./O. and others.

 

3rd: the photographer

Who is buying a Leica? Maybe some collectors, ok. Also some posers who wants to show off the red dot, ok. If they can and want they should spend a lot of money - it is good for Leica

 

But most people have a claim, not only to making pictures, but photographs. With a Leica, one does not automatically do better photographs, sure not, but the user knows, that he is capable of doing it! He does not wanting classical snapshots. A Leica user is not restricted by the camera itself. So the photo taken shows, what the photographer can do. When a photographer take a photo he has the picture already in his head! To press the shutter button is the end of that process, not the beginning. And the final picture taken with the Leica shows that, because any restriction in the picture results from the knowledge of the photographer, not from the possibilities of the camera. As an example, let me say someone starts the hobby of photography. Best start in the Leica world is a D-Lux, maybe a V-Lux. After several thousands of photos he has more experience and finally comes to conclusion to play more with depth of sharpness, available light, and so on. Then the photographer switch to the X1. Later to the M9. And then, there are many lenses to check, to develop the special way of his(or her) special way of photography.

 

So I think the "Leica Look" we mean here, results - or IS - the look of photos of every photographer who takes photographs with a Leica.