Signature Look / Leica Look

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think Ian is referring to digital cameras and therefore 'digital photographers'... and therefore their problem (on the digital specific stuff he mentioned).

 

On the other hand, I disagree with his point that the camera doesn't intrude on the picture making process. The very fact you have to make choices in aperture, shutter speed, film selected and loaded, iso, developing, printing etc., etc., means the camera and the whole process of making an image very much 'gets in the way'... although I would argue that's the very reason we choose to use these cameras... 

 

 

Yes, I was simply pointing out that the stuff about batteries and cards, ISO, etc are digital related matters that are not relevant if you are using film. I guess I was slightly irritated by the assumption that a Leica camera is a digital one.

 

In terms of intrusiveness, I was making a relative point about the act of taking a photograph (not the entire process from seeing something to putting a framed print on the wall). Compared to many other cameras, a rangefinder (with it's non-TTL window view of the world) is about as simple as it gets – almost as simple as holding up a cropping tool to the world. As long as you have established the exposure before bringing the camera to your eye (which is what I prefer to do), you really only have to focus, frame and shoot (and, if you are into zone focussing – which I'm generally not – it's even simpler). 

[Bill Livingston]

I guess I was slightly irritated by the assumption that a Leica camera is a digital one.

 

 

Lol! I guess that I get irritated sometimes by the fact that anyone feels the need to even differentiate between analogue and digital capture, as can be witnessed by my comments on another thread.

 

Analogue and digital are simply means of capturing an image and both have advantages and characteristics that allows us to make choices that suit either the image itself or the way each individual prefers to work. There is no right or wrong although I totally understand those who hold strong views either way.

 

I actually believe there is a much more fundamental difference between Leica and most other cameras, in that they are simpler and therefore more connected to the final image, provided of course that the photographer has a basic understanding of the mechanics of photography and how those choices over the mechanics affect the image at capture. In that sense, an M feels far less intrusive because the thought process involved in those choices is relatively simple, if dynamic and interrelated.

 

My assumption, of which I'm absolutely guilty of, is that all Leica cameras are M cameras... but I remind myself constantly that that isn't actually the case

[wattsy]

Lol! I guess that I get irritated sometimes by the fact that anyone feels the need to even differentiate between analogue and digital capture, as can be witnessed by my comments on another thread.

 

 Best not to go there.

 

 

I actually believe there is a much more fundamental difference between Leica and most other cameras, in that they are simpler and therefore more connected to the final image if you have a basic understanding of the mechanics of photography and how those choices over the mechanics affect the image at capture. In that sense, an M feels far less intrusive because the thought process involved in those choices is relatively simple, if dynamic and interrelated.

 

My assumption, of which I'm absolutely guilty of, is that all Leica cameras are M cameras... but I remind myself constantly that that isn't actually the case

 

 

Yes, I think so. There are of course other cameras that can be used in a straightforward way but a Leica RF seems to be an especially effortless option for a broad range of photographic objectives.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with assuming a "Leica camera" is an M camera. The company may have other product lines but a "Leica" (as used in common parlance) will always be a Leica rangefinder.

[carta]

I just meant, that when somebody  is writing: " I have an Apo summicron, Noctilux etc. I cannot know what lens he means, there are different kinds. A 90 apo doesn't cost as much as an apo 50mm. There's a price difference.

 

Also, if I have a lens , that I know really well, I would not say: " I have an Apo summicron."  I would gladly chair all the information about this specific lens.

 

It's like saying: "I have a Mercedes" nobody knows what kind... Last year I drove a Mercedes with 450 kilo of diving gear to the port.  Can you tell me what kind that was? Was it expensive?

 

 

My sincere apologies that I lacked information.

It's an Apo Summicron 50mm.

 

I made a mention to the Nocti and the Apo 50mm because they seem to get a lot of attention as having "a special look", and simply wanted to avoid posts like "you don't know what you're talking about because you never used the 50 AA. . ." etc.

 

However, as I have mentioned above, the Noctilux (0.95 is the one I have) and the Apo Summicron 50mm are certainly great lenses, but I don't see anything "specially Leica" about them except for the typical Leica price tag.  I guess I'm not "worthy" of owning such lenses if I can't appreciate its ewesome-leicaness that other people tend to mention, but that's that.  I use them and I'm happy using them.  I just don't see anything out-of-the-world extraordinary about them.

[carta]

 

 

 

 Best not to go there.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I think so. There are of course other cameras that can be used in a straightforward way but a Leica RF seems to be an especially effortless option for a broad range of photographic objectives.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with assuming a "Leica camera" is an M camera. The company may have other product lines but a "Leica" (as used in common parlance) will always be a Leica rangefinder.

 

 

I don't want to start a completely different argument here, but just my opinion.

 

When people speak about the "straightforwardness" of the Leica M series, I both agree and disagree.

I love the M system (that's why I'm here, as we all are), and I think it's "simple" and "elegant" as others will probably agree.

 

However, as much as others say "I can focus much faster using the rangefinder than any AF", my Canon DSLR can focus lightning-fast, and I'm not sure if I can ever beat its ultrasonic (or whatever it's called) motor.

 

Or my iPhone can sometimes snap quick photos of pretty good quality mindlessly.

I know I'm totally off topic now, but. . .I guess one day technology will take us to a point where we can just stare at something and snap a photo - the computer will fix all the distortions, choose the best color using some super-mind AI, and save the photo at a gazillion-pixels.  And I somehow suspect there will still be people saying that the rangefinder is still the most straightforward camera.  And I think I might be in that group, for some reason.

[Paul J]

Some quick notes...

 

Leica has a natural and round smoothness in detail and tonality while still being exceptionally sharp, compared with both Canon and Nikon, and some of my Medium Format lenses which can be quite harsh to look at. More so in high contrast scenes. Even the very newest of Canon lenses are quite harsh, IMO, ugly. Leica's colour transmission is quite often superior too, with far more balance in saturation and natural tonality across the entire tonal range. As is the micro-contrast, although the biggest of Marque's have been working hard to close the gap in this regard. The transition between in and out of focus is remarkable and you see this in wide and moderate apertures too, giving a silky appearance.

 

The contrast is accurate on most Leica lenses, too much contrast is ugly, not enough can make a mess of images that need subtlety and fine nuance to replicate a scene accurately. Lenses don't need great changes in contrast to create off looking images. This, and colour, is one of the main areas where image quality is perceived.

 

The most obvious of traits of "signature" is the out of focus rendering, something which I think Leica is often considered for. While most just create either a smooth wall of blur, some terribly smudgey in appearance like a bad gaussian blur, OR create a busy mess, Leica is unique in that it has distinct layers of both a very smooth and fine base layered with, at times, beautifully smooth and impressionistic detail. It's the layering in a perceived three dimensions that has such a great impact for me.

 

In terms of quality, Zeiss is also a very fine lens designer and manufacturer although some their most modern designs are not truly Zeiss, often Tamron and others. But their best of lenses are indeed exceptional and some prefer their rendering which is different again. I find the differences in out of focus rendering most obvious between Leica and Zeiss in the way that the highlights group together. Zeiss rendering is iconic because some of the most iconic images have been rendered with them. In particular portraits, fashion of the eighties and nineties were largely defined by the very distinct look of the 110 f2 Planar. It's a tool that pumps out what his often described as "timeless". Some of this can be found in the 135 apo sonnar which I have a bit of an obsession for.

 

That is not to say that all Leica lenses share the exact same qualities, and not to varying degrees, but in general, and just briefly (I can and do bang on about it greater detail), these are some of the most obvious qualities I have found somewhat consistent.

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back in film days,  I got started because I could not duplicate the lovely tones of the samples in paper manufactures sample books.    Kodak, Ilford, DuPont Agfa a Japanese brand I can not remember  but I disliked,  all had sample books attached to the shelves.   

 

I tried for years with my Pentax lenses and could not achieve the results I craved.   I was loaned a M3 and 50 Summicron and bingo, first roll hit the jackpot.   Same developer, same batch of film, same paper printed at the same time.  

 

My wife could spot the Leica shots even without a side by side.  She knows zip about photography then.

 

Bought a Nikon D200 because I wanted a decent digital at a decent price point.   

 

I kept away from Leica RF digital until my son bought one and I just had to keep up.  

 

Today I have pro Nikons with latest lenses,  M8 & M9 with current lenses ,  and all  with profiled cameras.  

 

With digital,  the results are closer, much closer.    There is a color bias of Nikon lenses to emphasize   the greens. When I shoot adapted Leica lenses side by side on the Nikon body and frames are just like the Japanese films.  European color films were balanced differently.   Agfa was lovely. 

 

Anyway some shots show it , some do not depending on subject color.   It is not a sharpnes difference unless you use the consumer lenses or perhaps some fast lenses wide open.

 

What is glaring today is is the fast fall off of sharpness before and after the plane of focus with the Leica.  Karbe design the lenses to do this and he has stated so.   It gives a 3D pop.    Nikon has smoother transitions from sharp to unsharp and rounded aperture blades that give better bokeh if you compare at stops other than wide open where Leica is naturally round.   

 

Now to digital prints.  The guy on the corner does a lousy job as he always has.  I use a lab that caters to professionals only and they are meticulous as to color.   I get beautiful laser prints from either Leica or Nikon.  The difference is much smaller than in 1985 , but the color bias and bokeh is are still there.  Customers NEVER see it.  I wish I could afford A LASER printer.  

 

That is my story which you can accept or reject,  but I will not change my mind.  There is still some magic .  I think it mostly comes down to if you like RF or not.   

 

Oh yes, bigger format is better just as bigger film is better.   Well done Leica or Nikon is in much the same league as hasselblad or RB67 film.    

[Echo63]

I dont know if there is a signature "leica look"

But my wife and a few colleagues can tell the difference between pictures from my Canon cameras (1DX, 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L) and my M (50 f2.5 Summarit and 90 M rokkor)

 

A colleague and i were discussing it the other day - he shoots Nikon at work and has a Fuji X100T that he shoots with outside work

 

We couldnt decide on a cause, but could both tell the difference between each others cameras.

I think it may be the way we shoot at home and at work, with two completely different styles - "work" being a bit boring with minimal post processing, and the "home" pictures pushing the limits a bit more - and using a lot more post processing.

[Paulus]

My sincere apologies that I lacked information.

It's an Apo Summicron 50mm.

 

I made a mention to the Nocti and the Apo 50mm because they seem to get a lot of attention as having "a special look", and simply wanted to avoid posts like "you don't know what you're talking about because you never used the 50 AA. . ." etc.

 

However, as I have mentioned above, the Noctilux (0.95 is the one I have) and the Apo Summicron 50mm are certainly great lenses, but I don't see anything "specially Leica" about them except for the typical Leica price tag.  I guess I'm not "worthy" of owning such lenses if I can't appreciate its ewesome-leicaness that other people tend to mention, but that's that.  I use them and I'm happy using them.  I just don't see anything out-of-the-world extraordinary about them.

I would advise you to sell the Apo and trade it for a 50mm summicron type 4.

[earleygallery]

Again, lots of words but no pictures, in a thread about the Leica look LOL. 

 

Let's have some photos to clearly prove the point please. I can post a few images with Leica and other lenses - we'll then get random answers with no clear leader and then the disclaimers that "you can't tell on small web images you need to see a print". 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think (most, not all) Leica lenses are great, and some do have a specific quality to the images they produce, but I just don't believe that anyone would be able to reliably and consistently tell a Leica image apart from others. 

[Manoleica]

Again, lots of words but no pictures, in a thread about the Leica look LOL. 

 

Let's have some photos to clearly prove the point please. I can post a few images with Leica and other lenses - we'll then get random answers with no clear leader and then the disclaimers that "you can't tell on small web images you need to see a print". 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think (most, not all) Leica lenses are great, and some do have a specific quality to the images they produce, but I just don't believe that anyone would be able to reliably and consistently tell a Leica image apart from others. 

What you believe is fine, others might disagree. I have 3 EHD's full of images (Leica & Nikon) - somehow I can tell the differences, but not every body can..  So What..

These have the Leica "Bite" --- enjoy... 

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!

[pgk]

If you take two Leica 75mm lenses - the Summilux and the Summicorn - and compare the results from them you will find that they represent two very different design philosophies.

 

The older Summilux is softer wide open and easily suffers from veiling flare lowering contrast. Stopped down it produces very sharp images but with transitions in fine detail edges which are very smooth due to just a trace of softness, betraying the fact that it is not actually a perfect design. However the effect is actually very nice indeed and as a lens it is capable of extremely pleasing results at most apertures with appropriate lighting and subject matter.

 

The newer Summicron is an extremely good lens and one which is often referred to as being 'clinical' due to its extremely precise rendition of images. Contrast is high and detail is extremely well resolved - better than the Summilux. In short it is a very well designed lens which makes use of modern design possibilities to achieve superb results.

 

So how exactly do these two lenses share any 'magic' as the are so very different in concept, design and rendition? 

[TRIago]

Of course the Leica look is true. If the picture was taken using Leica gear, then you have the Leica Look. There's also Nikon look, Canon look, and so on...

I just happen to like the Leica look better. What's the problem with that?

If one likes the Fuji look, so be it.

[carta]

Of course the Leica look is true. If the picture was taken using Leica gear, then you have the Leica Look. There's also Nikon look, Canon look, and so on...

I just happen to like the Leica look better. What's the problem with that?

If one likes the Fuji look, so be it.

Can I see samples of those "looks"?

How do you distinguish between one another?

[TRIago]

Can I see samples of those "looks"?

How do you distinguish between one another?

I am sure you can see samples of the different looks. Just try some research online or even better, try it yourself. I strongly recommend you take pictures of the same subject/light using the exact same camera/lens settings with Leica, Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony gear. (of course you can add or remove brands as you like)

 

Then open it up on your computer (or in case of film, send to a good lab) and pick the brand you like better for yourself.

 

One can distinguish by looking at them.

 

Cheers.

[pico]

Summilux 35mm V2 @1.4, pushed Tri-x

 

[friedeye]

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!

These are from a 35 Lux Pre-Asph, and, I think, show the range and "Leica-ness" of the lens. The towel shot is wide open and has a lot of bloom - I like this, and value the lux for this. The carwash shot is at f/8, sharp and clean.  Obviously, both shots are digital -- but I shoot my M9 like my M2 and M3: manual all the way.  And that's what I like about Leica and the RF experience.  My analogue cameras and my digital camera operate the same way, use the same ISO range (M9), and feel the same in my hand. It's a lovely and unique Leica experience; you can't do that with any other camera brand.

 

 

[friedeye]

The F/8 shot:

 

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!

[Herr Barnack]

The more we look, the more we see. At first, you don't see it. Then after years of looking, it becomes subtle. Further years it becomes obvious, and sometime after that you want nothing less and can't live without it.

 

But "magic" is a matter of opinion and choice of words. Personally I find the differences highly favourable/desirable over most other lenses I've ever used, and in some cases I won't use anything else.

 

That has also been my experience.  It didn't really take me years of looking, though and it was anything but subtle. 

 

I had a lightbox covered with Fuji Velvia 50 chromes that I had shot with my Nikon lenses, and they looked pretty good.  One chrome shot with my pre-ASPH 50 Summilux had found its way in with the Nikon chromes.  It all but jumped off the lightbox and yanked my eyeballs out of their sockets.  I was awestruck by the difference; the Nikon chromes looked sick next to the lone Leica M made Velvia chrome. 

 

If you want to see the difference, stop looking at a computer screen and shoot a roll of Velvia with an M camera and lens at every aperture, then do the same with a Canon or Nikon camera and lens.  Look at the chromes side by side on a lightbox.  It will blow your mind.   I no longer have my Nikon system - I traded it all in (four bodies and eight lenses) to help build my Leica M kit.

 

 

Some can see the difference.  Some can't.

Hogwash?  Absolutely not. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tobey bilek]

When I was shooting slide film professionally, the owner of my stock agency and my slide duplicator both asked me the same question: "What lenses are you using?" When I answered "Leica", they both nodded and smiled. Certain Mandler designed lenses have a look on film that is only found with Leica. Not so much anymore with digital - the latest Leica lenses (except for the 28mm Summicron) on a M 240 produce results that look very similar to Nikon or Canon's best lenses and camera.

 

Years back I belonged to a camera club and we had a contest to photograph certain outside subject on one furnished and club processed roll of slide film.  The major unbeliever was sorting the entries name side down and he noticed certain ones were considerably better images than others.  When all was said and done, the brilliant ones belonged to the Leica users.  He sold his Pentax gear which he thought was so good.

 

My first Leica lens was a 125 mm Hector that I bought without even having a Leica body.  I made an adapter to mount it to my Pentax.  Then I took a bunch of photos at a family gathering with the Hector lens shots in the middle of the roll of slides.  It was no problem to pick them out.

 

With digital the color is somewhat the same.   But what you see with the Leica is the transition between and unsharp is very fast which gives the pic a 3 D quality.  Karbe likes the design this way.   My pro Nikons show much smoother longer transitions and they are biased toward green.  Put my Leica 100 APO on the D800 and matching 105 Nikon and you can see the green bias much like the Japanese films compared to those from Europe..