Signature Look / Leica Look

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some quick notes...

 

Leica has a natural and round smoothness in detail and tonality while still being exceptionally sharp...  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.

 

 

That is not to say that all Leica lenses share the exact same qualities, and not to varying degrees....

 

I have heavily edited this post, but the crux of the issues lies in the last line.   Lens design, glass composition, and coatings have changed so radically so many times over the course of the past hundred years that to make the broad sweeping statement that the entire lens line shares enough traits in common to have a "signature look" just isn't logical.    To make the assertions at the beginning of the post that they have these traits, and then to qualify it at the end that some don't further confuses the issue.

 

I have owned many Leitz lenses over the years and they're good glass...  but there's nothing magical, mystical, or even special enough about them to say they've got a "signature look."

 

Here are two random, but similar photos from Flickr...   one reportedly shot with a Noctilux, the other a Voigtlander Nokton...  If Leica has a "signature look" then any of us who shoot Leica lenses should immediately be able to tell which one is the Leica image.   So which is which?

 

Pipe Smoking Gentleman by Nick Redman, on Flickr

 

IMG926 Osvaldo (Leica Noctilux 50mm Tmax400-bw) by Paolo Viviani, on Flickr

[Advertisement]

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

[DezFoto]

There is definitely a distinct way that modern ASPH Leica lenses render. Leica lenses render colors cooler than say, Zeiss. Veiling flare tends to be purple-ish, focus fall off is rather sudden and aberrations are very tightly corrected, especially wide open. Contrast is generally lower than the competition from Zeiss, but this is generally considered a good thing by film shooters (especially for B&W or film). Out of focus areas are usually very smoothly rendered.

 

Most lenses are fairly close in performance at f/5.6 but compare a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G to a 50mm Summilux ASPH f/1.4 to each other at f/1.4 and you'll see the Summilux has a much, much higher level of correction, contrast and sharpness. That's why there's such a price difference. Compare the Summilux and Zeiss Otus, well, not as much of a difference, which is why the prices are much closer to each other. That being said, they still render differently, the Zeiss has warmer colors, stronger global contrast, much stronger micro contrast and resolves fine details a little better. They both have a more abrupt focus falloff than most Canon, Nikon or Sigma lenses. 

 

Every manufacturer's lenses render differently (which is often referred to their "look" or "signature"). They all have different optical formulas, use different glass combinations and have their own lenses coatings. To say they're all the same or equal is, frankly, ignorant. Are the differences enough for you to care about? That's strictly a matter of personal taste. 

[Paulus]

There is definitely a distinct way that modern ASPH Leica lenses render.

 

Most lenses are fairly close in performance at f/5.6 but compare a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G to a 50mm Summilux ASPH f/1.4 to each other at f/1.4 and you'll see the Summilux has a much, much higher level of correction, contrast and sharpness. . 

 

 

Just by coïncidence, the subject was brought to the attention of a aquintance today, looking at my recent assignment. He shoots with Nikon and asked me, why it could be, that my photos were different than his.

 

I showed him some recent aspherical lenses photos all with available challenging light :

 

https://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Sports/Voetbal/Sarto-Voetbal-Fotos-per-jaar/Sarto-Voetbalquiz-2016/

 

compared with the same situation , same location, same people a few years earlier, with a Nikon AF 1,8/ 85mm ( sometimes with flashlight:

 

https://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Sports/Voetbal/Sarto-Voetbal-Fotos-per-jaar/Sarto-Voetbalquiz-27-01-2012/i-qLT9Psn

 

Of course not very scientific and much variables, but for him the were some differences in three- dimensionallity. Looking on a 42 inch screen the difference was noticeble. ( But maybe it has to do with a different kind of photograpical approach.. )

[Paulus]

It's  challenging to compare 5 years of the same situation of photos and trying to " guess " with which lens it is made.The Leica Apop 90mm or the Nikkor 1,8/85mm I tried, but failed many times. One also has to take the Nikon/Leica CMOS/ CCD sensor into account. Most of the ones are shot at F 2,0. But hit the ball with i for info on the camera /lens.

 

https://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Sports/Voetbal/Sarto-Voetbal-Fotos-per-jaar

[TRIago]

If Leica has a "signature look" then any of us who shoot Leica lenses should immediately be able to tell which one is the Leica image.

Says who?

[hepcat]

Says who?

The folks who are claiming that Leitz/Leica lenses have a "signature look."  Suggesting that there is a "signature look"  implies a consistency of the way the lenses make images that should be immediately apparent that would lead anyone to look at an image and say "oh, THAT was most certainly a Leica lens image."  

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just by coïncidence, the subject was brought to the attention of a aquintance today, looking at my recent assignment. He shoots with Nikon and asked me, why it could be, that my photos were different than his.

 

I showed him some recent aspherical lenses photos all with available challenging light :

 

https://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Sports/Voetbal/Sarto-Voetbal-Fotos-per-jaar/Sarto-Voetbalquiz-2016/

 

compared with the same situation , same location, same people a few years earlier, with a Nikon AF 1,8/ 85mm ( sometimes with flashlight:

 

https://pauljoostenfotograaf.smugmug.com/Sports/Voetbal/Sarto-Voetbal-Fotos-per-jaar/Sarto-Voetbalquiz-27-01-2012/i-qLT9Psn

 

Of course not very scientific and much variables, but for him the were some differences in three- dimensionallity. Looking on a 42 inch screen the difference was noticeble. ( But maybe it has to do with a different kind of photograpical approach.. )

 

Interesting comparison.   I'm seeing more of a difference in the two groups of photos that I'd attribute to the slight compression and difference in perspective of an 85mm lens over a 50mm lens.  Both groups of images are excellent with different color rendering... that is most likely attributable to differences in the sensors of the cameras.   While there's no denying that the groups of photos definitely display different characteristics, there are still too many variables here to say the differences are the result of the lens manufacture alone.

[pgk]

Every manufacturer's lenses render differently (which is often referred to their "look" or "signature"). They all have different optical formulas, use different glass combinations and have their own lenses coatings. To say they're all the same or equal is, frankly, ignorant. Are the differences enough for you to care about? That's strictly a matter of personal taste. 

 

But to say that any manufacturer's lenses have a 'signature look' is preposterous. Design parameters change (fortunately, or we'd all be stuck with old and poor designs) and consequently the 'look' of the images must change too (pre-aspheric versus aspheric designs - quite different design parameters and obviously they create different images too). So to suggest that there is a 'Leica look' is to suggest some technical magical mystique created by Leica optical engineers which has been added into their lens design mix since they started and nobody else has ever discovered it. If you seriously think that then you've probably been schooled at Hogwarts. Lens design is a technical process and Leica optical engineers are obviously very good at it - but they are not magicians.

[carta]

The reason I started this thread. . .

 

A good friend of mine works as an editor for an earphone/headphone shop.

She writes these reviews for headphones and other audio equipment, and gets lots of page views.

 

Now one day I told her,

"That's amazing - I can't hear the different between the headphones, but you surely have great hearing!"

 

she replied with a smile

 

"Nah, I don't know the difference - sometimes I don't even use the headphones I am reviewing - I just write cool terms like "the sound field is. . ." or "the graph shows. . ." or "the sound is smooth and elegant, with a touch of mellowness in the bass. . ."  I don't even know what the h*** a smooth sound is"

 

. . . and people still praise her as one of the top level reviewers in the field.

 

You never know.

 

I know people posted here that there are people who can truly tell the difference.

From so many posts that says that people were able to pick out the Leica photos from the others, I'm sure there is some kind of difference. . . But I don't see it.  It's my problem, so no need to worry about that, but I just can't see it.

[earleygallery]

If you post some random photos taken with Leica and other lenses and ask people to pick the Leica images, the same people who swear they can tell the Leica signature from 100 yards will say "oh no you can tell from a small image posted on the web"!

[hepcat]

The reason I started this thread. . .

 

A good friend of mine works as an editor for an earphone/headphone shop.

She writes these reviews for headphones and other audio equipment, and gets lots of page views.

 

Now one day I told her,

"That's amazing - I can't hear the different between the headphones, but you surely have great hearing!"

 

she replied with a smile

 

"Nah, I don't know the difference - sometimes I don't even use the headphones I am reviewing - I just write cool terms like "the sound field is. . ." or "the graph shows. . ." or "the sound is smooth and elegant, with a touch of mellowness in the bass. . ."  I don't even know what the h*** a smooth sound is"

 

. . . and people still praise her as one of the top level reviewers in the field.

 

You never know.

 

I know people posted here that there are people who can truly tell the difference.

From so many posts that says that people were able to pick out the Leica photos from the others, I'm sure there is some kind of difference. . . But I don't see it.  It's my problem, so no need to worry about that, but I just can't see it.

 

Reminiscent of a Hans Christian Andersen tale, isn't it. 

[carta]

If you post some random photos taken with Leica and other lenses and ask people to pick the Leica images, the same people who swear they can tell the Leica signature from 100 yards will say "oh no you can tell from a small image posted on the web"!

Perhaps a test with RAW files from random cameras with the exif data disabled (wonder if you can do that) will show something..

[Steve Ash]

Obviously she is not good. She is just a friend...

[Herr Barnack]

If you post some random photos taken with Leica and other lenses and ask people to pick the Leica images, the same people who swear they can tell the Leica signature from 100 yards will say "oh no you can tell from a small image posted on the web"!

I think the term being used here - "Leica signature" - is somewhat of a misnomer and is the sticking point that has divided this discussion into two camps, "yes you can" and "hogwash."

 

As for "people who swear they can tell the Leica signature from 100 yards," who was it that made such a claim? 

 

As I stated earlier (post 79), "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."

 

In this world we live in, there are hundreds of millions - perhaps billions - of computer screens in use.  There are thousands of different makes and models of computer screens.  Some are brand new, some are several years old. Are they all calibrated precisely the same?  I sort of doubt it.  With regard to computer screens, seeing the "Leica signature" is contingent on precision; this brings us back to Velvia. 

 

Looking for the "Leica signature" on various and sundry random computer screens around the world that are calibrated willy nilly (or not at all) is akin not to comparing apples to oranges; it is more like comparing apples to Rubik's cubes.

[earleygallery]

I think the term being used here - "Leica signature" - is somewhat of a misnomer and is the sticking point that has divided this discussion into two camps, "yes you can" and "hogwash."

 

As for "people who swear they can tell the Leica signature from 100 yards," who was it that made such a claim?

 

As I stated earlier (post 79), "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."

 

In this world we live in, there are hundreds of millions - perhaps billions - of computer screens in use. There are thousands of different makes and models of computer screens. Some are brand new, some are several years old. Are they all calibrated precisely the same? I sort of doubt it. With regard to computer screens, seeing the "Leica signature" is contingent on precision; this brings us back to Velvia.

 

Looking for the "Leica signature" on various and sundry random computer screens around the world that are calibrated willy nilly (or not at all) is akin not to comparing apples to oranges; it is more like comparing apples to Rubik's cubes.

So you're saying there is a definitive 'Leica look' but it's impossible to see with digital photography.

 

Hmmmm

[Herr Barnack]

So you're saying there is a definitive 'Leica look' but it's impossible to see with digital photography.

 

Hmmmm

No - you can see it if it is made with a digital M.  It seems to be more apparent on E-6, though.  That having been said, it may be a combination of both the M lens and the M sensor and not just the lens.

 

It may also be that the struggle is in trying to quantify it and/or describe the elusive attributes we are discussing here. 

[TRIago]

The folks who are claiming that Leitz/Leica lenses have a "signature look." Suggesting that there is a "signature look" implies a consistency of the way the lenses make images that should be immediately apparent that would lead anyone to look at an image and say "oh, THAT was most certainly a Leica lens image."

As I said, the Leica look is there. As is the Canon look and so on. Now the "suggesting" bit is subjective. It might lead you, but it does not lead me. Again, as I said, shoot the same subject/objects under the same condition with different gear and pick the one you like the most. What's so hard to understand about it? If you don't like the look the Leica gear will give you, it's fine. Nobody really cares, I believe. At least I don't, that is for sure. Don't get me wrong, I just mean you should use whatever gear fits yourself. Cheers.

[hepcat]

As I said, the Leica look is there... What's so hard to understand about it? ... I believe. .

 

Yes, I know you believe.  I can't argue with belief.  Belief defies logic and demonstration.   This is something that folks claim IS demonstrated, but it's always described in some ethereal terms.

 

What's so hard to understand?  That you believe in something that it would seem no one can definitively demonstrate.  I understand that there are variations in the way different brands record light, and that different lenses and recording media will record differently. I can appreciate that.  Much of that has to do with lens coatings, glass composition, engineering, and in digital, the way the sensors are manufactured, cover glass, and software.  

 

The question at hand, though, is the "signature Leica look" that would ostensibly differentiate a photo taken with a Leica lens from all other photos taken with any other lens line. If it exists, should it not be apparent in any display medium?   The problem is that the concept seems to defy logic and apparently defies demonstration.   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

The question at hand, though, is the "signature Leica look" that would ostensibly differentiate a photo taken with a Leica lens from all other photos taken with any other lens line.

 

To phrase it subtly differently:

 

The question at hand, though, is the "signature Leica look" that would ostensibly differentiate photos taken with any Leica lens from all other photos taken with any other lens line.

 

The problem is that any "signature Leica look" must either exist throughout all Leica's lenses or not at all. An individual lens (from a variety of manufacturers) can have a very distinctive signature. This is not in dispute and I can testify to this myself. The problem is that there simply is no "signature Leica look" attributable to all Leica lenses. Some (actually quite a lot of) Leica lenses are technically superlative (for example the 75mm Summilux (for its day) and Summicron (a state of the art current design) as I stated earlier in this thread, but with very different renderings) and some are not (the pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux which nevertheless has - as demonstrated in this thread - a very distinctive look too and one which can be so effective).

 

But there is no magic, across the range, signature look. It really doesn't exist. So some Leica lenses may have their own distinctive 'fingerprint' but not all do - its that simple. And no, even after 35+ years of using Leicas on and off, I could not determine which lens has been used from a photo with any guarantee of certainty for the most part, although for some I could make an educated guess.

[TRIago]

Yes, I know you believe.  I can't argue with belief.  Belief defies logic and demonstration.   This is something that folks claim IS demonstrated, but it's always described in some ethereal terms.

 

What's so hard to understand?  That you believe in something that it would seem no one can definitively demonstrate.  I understand that there are variations in the way different brands record light, and that different lenses and recording media will record differently. I can appreciate that.  Much of that has to do with lens coatings, glass composition, engineering, and in digital, the way the sensors are manufactured, cover glass, and software.  

 

The question at hand, though, is the "signature Leica look" that would ostensibly differentiate a photo taken with a Leica lens from all other photos taken with any other lens line. If it exists, should it not be apparent in any display medium?   The problem is that the concept seems to defy logic and apparently defies demonstration.   

 

Haha you are actually modifying the order of the words I type? For real? Comic.

This is the 3rd time I write you this: you don't need anyone to demonstrate anything for you.

If you have doubts, put some cameras next to each other using the same settings, shoot them, then you pick what you like best. The end.