The Leica Look No More?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMHO the M8 & M9 produce substantially different image files to other cameras. Flexible, noisy (at low ISOs the noise is relatively film-like), and with a distinct colour palette. BUT...

 

Modern M lenses are characterised by their extremely fine reproduction. My 21/3.4SE is way ahead of any other 20/21mm lens that I've used. Its a very fine lens with low distortion and is very, very precise in its rendition - which means that its is unlike many earlier lenses from Leica.

 

These two current characteristics can produce a different 'look' to many others but whether this is easily definable or whether it carries on from an earlier Leica 'look' is difficult to say. What characteristics a new sensor will bring into the equation only time will tell. Whatever it does there is no doubt that Leica M cameras will still be capable of superb results and hopefully slightly different from the 'competition' as choice is never a bad thing.

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

I wonder whether anyone could tell a "glowing" photograph from one which does not in a double blind test, and under which circumstances.

[Guest malland]

This is why I was trying to get away from the idea of a "Leica look" and to draw the discussion to consider whether there is a way of characterizing the color rendition of the M9 and the M240 along the lines of similarity to color slide film or color negative film, although I feel that it is premature to do this until the final version of the M240 is out and the LR4 profile is also completed.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[250swb]

I think Wilfredo is putting the cart before the horse in two ways.

 

If we assume the M8 established a 'Leica look' what did those first photographers using an M8 think they had? It won't have matched their film Leica's so they can't possibly have thought they had found a 'Leica look'. A 'Leica look' can only have developed through familiarity (where enough pictures look the same), because people start to gravitate towards the same lenses, and shoot similar subjects. Each encourages the other towards a conformity that could be called a 'Leica look'. But this will be the same with the M. It is uncharted ground and a new 'Leica look' will develop where threads begin 'what lens are you using with your M?', and 'best RAW processor for M?'.

 

So I don't think Wilfredo is talking about photographers with a unique vision in using a Leica, but rather a lumpen mass who follow convention. No photographer who we now associate with an archetypal Leica image, such as Robert Frank, Bresson, Ralph Gibson, set out to use a 'Leica look', they had the look they wanted in their minds eye, and didn't buy their style from a shop.

 

And while it is a natural thing to follow a master and adopt a style in order to learn, as any student of art will understand, it is the ultimate responsibility of that student to break the bonds and evolve their own style. So if there is such a thing as a 'Leica look' (and in Wilfredo's context there is) it is something to be fought against because the only consequence that come from it is mundanity, a Leica Proletariate where photographs are actively criticised for lacking 'the look'.

 

Steve

[jonoslack]

I was seriously considering selling some gear to purchase the M240 but after seeing the images it produces I decided it wasn't for me. So, I will hang on to the older technology of the D2 and the M8.

 

HI There Wilfredo

I hope you're well - long time no speak.

 

I'm interested in this remark - with reference to the posted DNG files - well, they were all with relatively primitive firmware, and anyway (maybe I shouldn't be saying it) but it seems to me that looking at other peoples DNG files is rather like judging their appearance by looking at their underwear

 

However - in my article (M article) I was really careful with the pictures - processed them properly in Aperture (which is what I like to use). The idea was just to show some of MY images taken with the M camera. I felt that I'd paid my dues showing underwear!

 

So - to my point - did you look at those images - and did you still feel that they just looked like Canikon images?

(more here)

 

(no need to be polite by the way).

 

all the best

[CalArts 99]

This has the Leica look....

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!

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As an aside

I took an identical scene with the M, and the M9p with the 35 'lux, and the Olympus OMD with the Panasonic 12-35 at 35mm equivalent. I adjusted the aperture to make it harder to judge. I then adjusted the size of each of the 3 files and stripped the exif (so you couldn't tell either by the depth of field or the file size). I then did the same thing at 70mm equivalent

 

I then sent the 16mp resulting files to several people as a kind of a game (including someone significant at leica). Being a devious kind of guy I muddled up the filename sequences so they didn't match for the two focal lengths.

 

The results were interesting in that they were all totally random - nobody guessed right - in fact, most of the results were worse than you would expect from a random guess.

 

all the best

[earleygallery]

I think it's rather funny that we have a thread about 'the Leica look' running to two pages now, and not one photo to demonstrate what is being talked about!

 

Now some will no doubt say, given Jono's example, why bother with a Leica if you can't tell the difference?

 

Of course we know that Leica lenses generally perform better than other makes at full aperture. We know that resolution is often better, and certain lenses definately have unique signature to them. Leica made their name for offering photographers a compact camera with a new 'minature' format, but high quality optics to squeeze the most out.

 

In critical conditions, at large print sizes, some of these points become important in a way that a low res image on a monitor cannot demonstrate, but we also use Leica for numerous other reasons not all to do with how the photos may (or may not) look, such as mode of operation, size of equipment, preference for manual controls and often the emotional attraction to the marque.

[jonoslack]

I think it's rather funny that we have a thread about 'the Leica look' running to two pages now, and not one photo to demonstrate what is being talked about!

 

Now some will no doubt say, given Jono's example, why bother with a Leica if you can't tell the difference?/QUOTE]

 

Hi there

But I wouldn't say that though!

 

I can look at photographs I've taken, and I always know when they're taken with a Leica. More difficult with other people's photos! More difficult with other camers too.

 

It's partly the lovely lenses, but it's mainly that I just take better pictures with a Leica. I think it's because I don't need to think about the camera, and because I can see around the subject dunno!

 

The new camera doesn't change this (at least when you're shooting through the rangefinder!

 

All the best

[firstlight]

Perhaps some of you need a more discerning eye. LOL If you don't see it, you won't see it, it is the difference between the ordinary and the sublime.

 

Yes of course style and PP factor in, but it makes a difference when you have the right starting point at the stage of exposure.

 

You disqualify yourself as a professional with this thread.

There is no "Leica Look" on a sensor, can you explain it physically or even proof it with examples? - No you don't because you have no clue about it!

 

The special/unique rendering is comming from the lense!

And that's what you are talking about.

The fact that you relay on the CCD vs. CMOD discussion is non-sense.

 

To me this discussion is all about someone can't afford the new M and needs some reasons why he don't need it either .

 

BTW: I have seen many M9 pictures which can also have been taken with a Sony Nex or a Nikon <any type> DLSR!

[pico]

I think it's rather funny that we have a thread about 'the Leica look' running to two pages now, and not one photo to demonstrate what is being talked about!

 

The fact that I had to search to find some photos that have what I think is the 'Leica Look' makes your point. All are on Tri-X or fast Ilford with earlier lenses and shot at wide apertures with at least 1:5 stops from shadow detail to highlight.

 

Stereotypical thinking here?

 

[jonoslack]

Well, I agree that shot shows what I consider to be the Leica Look

 

I think it's fairly uncommon - but I've also recognised it in digital files. I'm not claiming this shot to be of the same quality at all, but I do think it has an inkling of the 'look' about it

 

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!

 

M Noctilux at f1.2 3200 ISO

[sblitz]

jono -- based on your blind test which i presume the results showed the olympus fared very well, what technical basis is there for owning a leica as opposed to another camera offering similar latitude in taking the picture? steve

[Jeff S]

The results were interesting in that they were all totally random - nobody guessed right - in fact, most of the results were worse than you would expect from a random guess.

 

Bingo. Quite predictable, actually, and that's been my point from the start. Even higher failure rates when tests are conducted 'double blind' using prints of varying subjects, with no commentary on gear used.

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

jono -- based on your blind test which i presume the results showed the olympus fared very well, what technical basis is there for owning a leica as opposed to another camera offering similar latitude in taking the picture? steve

 

Hi Steve

The Olympus didn't fare particularly well - it was actually pretty random. But the point really is that looking at one photo, taken on a tripod of a detailed view which is mostly in focus makes it really tough to decide.

 

I suppose that, in answer to your question, I don't have an answer beyond the fact that it's clearly the best vehicle for Leica lenses.

 

Like Steve and Pico, I don't see how the sensor can really be the creator of the 'leica look' (even assuming we could agree what it was). I also think it's quite hard to look at an image and not to filter it through one's own expectations. Which was why it was an interesting exercise to get people to look at files without knowing which camera they came from.

 

I really like the OMD - interestingly, I lent it to my son for a few weeks, and he raved about the image quality, colour, operation etc. . . . . and said he just didn't like the pictures he took with it. Go figure.

[jonoslack]

Bingo. Quite predictable, actually, and that's been my point from the start. Even higher failure rates when tests are conducted 'double blind' using prints of varying subjects, with no commentary on gear used.

 

Jeff

 

Exactly - it really doesn't invalidate the use of the camera you like to use - and a whole body of work is a different thing from a single image.

 

But making generic statements about a 'look' having examined half a dozen dng files from a pre-production camera hmmmmm!

[Jeff S]

... and to draw the discussion to consider whether there is a way of characterizing the color rendition of the M9 and the M240 along the lines of similarity to color slide film or color negative film,

 

I find this comment ironic given your journey with the Monochrom, which you chose in part because you recognized that the tool wouldn't lock you into a 'look'; rather it was you and your style and technique that dictated that look.

 

What makes you think that the M (or any other camera) is different in that regard? There are always steps one can take to impart a level of individuality to a final print, and color is one of those variables. I don't buy into the notion that every pic using any given camera has a unique color signature that can't be used to different effect. Nor did I think in my film days that every slide film looked alike, or that every color negative film looked alike. And not every print from any given film looked alike either. How boring that would have been.

 

Jeff

[Guest malland]

Jeff, you've got me wrong: I was in effect asking the question whether we'll (eventually) see a difference in color rendition from the two cameras based on the type of sensor. Despite stating that I made a "bet" in the M9P, I have no idea whether there could in practice be a correlation between the sensor type and the color rendition.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

jono -- based on your blind test which i presume the results showed the olympus fared very well, what technical basis is there for owning a leica as opposed to another camera offering similar latitude in taking the picture? steve

 

A camera needs to fit within the photographer's overall workflow...from picture taking to final output...in a way that supports his/her style and preferences. There are dozens of characteristics that come into play, including lens choices, ergonomics, the way the camera allows one to see, frame and focus on the subject, and on and on. IQ characteristics are more complicated, and may or may not come into play depending on the final output, e.g., a print (size matters), a web page, or a book.

 

And if you don't like using the camera, no technical specs will matter anyway. Each photographer's abilities will also dictate whether the technical aspects of any given camera can be exploited; some do a lot with little; some don't do much with a lot.

 

Jeff

[wilfredo]

HI There Wilfredo

I hope you're well - long time no speak.

 

I'm interested in this remark - with reference to the posted DNG files - well, they were all with relatively primitive firmware, and anyway (maybe I shouldn't be saying it) but it seems to me that looking at other peoples DNG files is rather like judging their appearance by looking at their underwear

 

However - in my article (M article) I was really careful with the pictures - processed them properly in Aperture (which is what I like to use). The idea was just to show some of MY images taken with the M camera. I felt that I'd paid my dues showing underwear!

 

So - to my point - did you look at those images - and did you still feel that they just looked like Canikon images?

(more here)

 

 

(no need to be polite by the way).

 

all the best

 

Hi Jono,

 

I commend you for having the courage to show your underwear! You are a brave man. I looked at your images and please understand that I do not find fault with your work. In fact, I enjoyed some of them very much. To answer your question, my answer is YES. These images look closer to what my Canon 5D Mark II would have produced than what either my D2 or M8 would have produced.

 

I get lot's of satisfaction from my Canon. I have two "R" lenses in my bag which I use on my 5D Mark II with wonderful results. But the fact remains that there is a noticeable difference to me. When it comes to flesh tones, Leica wins. When it comes to B&W photography, Leica wins. When it comes to moody shots, Leica has the edge. For some situations I prefer the Canon, but my best photography has been done with Leica gear.

 

I recognize that I don't have the technical expertise that some on this forum have. My conclusions comes from an aesthetic perspective. I'm convinced that a CCD sensor comes closer to film than a CMOS sensor. It is more gritty, and seems more natural to me. I'm 100% happy with the results especially since I gave up shooting film.

 

Some have raised questions about PP. I can tweak CMOS images in PP to come close to what I get with my Leica gear, and although I am often very satisfied, I know in my gut that there is a certain "je ne sais quoi" that remains missing for me.

 

In the end, what I am saying is that the new CMOS sensor loses the Leica magic for me. Perhaps that will change in time, as the firmware is refined, who knows?

 

All the best to you too.