The "Leica Look" is real!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, pgk said:

Obviously it means accurate, precise, etc.. If you really want it spelt out some (I did say some - not all) of Karbe's lenses produce high contrast, finely detailed images with minimal aberrations and distortion. Some refer to this as clinical because of the lack of imperfections. You have been here long enough to know this.

I think we will agree that some imperfections are aesthetically appealing. Looking to his lenses with the goal to find perfection is a peculiar perspective which obviates the notion of pleasing outcomes.

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

On 1/30/2019 at 6:51 PM, erl said:

Just found this thread. My wife convinced me that there is a 'Leica Look' without even knowing I had a Leica. She thought I only had Nikon and Hasselblad. She suddenly said, "what are you doing that is different to your photos? They suddenly look much better." I decided that was the crunch moment to announce I had bought a Leica!

Just as 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', (nobody has ever successfully defined it, but it is real) so too is the 'Leica Look'. If you can see it, you are blessed, if you can't, then you aren't.

When I bought my first Leica (M9 with a 35 Summicron ASPH), my wife scorned it as a toy.  Then she saw the images, and changed her mind.

11 pages in this thread - some from experts, some from excellent photographers, and others from keen Leica owners; none invalid and none deserving of scorn; yet none really answering the question.  Is there something about images taken with Leica equipment or lenses that others can’t replicate?  I’d have thought the obvious answer is “No”.

But, then my ex-wife had a point, as do many others.  So, what’s going on?  Sony has better and more complex technology, Zeiss more lenses, and I’m sure Hasselblad, Fuji and others can match any particular technical aspect of a Leica camera.  Canon and Nikon have similar expertise and back catalogues ... so what is it?  Examining microcontrast, edge sharpness, the plane of best focus, sharpness fall off, colour rendition and dynamic range will do your head in, frankly getting you nowhere.

The answer, to me, goes to Leica’s paradigm, its gestalt - how Leica approaches any photographic challenge.  They call on their historic expertise in lens designs, set their sensor specifications, adjust in camera raw treatment and approach camera design with that complete package in mind.  It’s not any one thing, but the complete package put together with a very specific approach to photography that no other manufacturer has matched (Hasselblad came close with the X1D).  I can’t see Sony spending years developing a lens (even with Zeiss) to Leica’s obsessive standards (it would be too expensive for them to put to market), nor do I see them producing a camera with such “modest” specifications as any Leica.  With every camera release, we hear that Leica’s tech is obsolete from the start.

But as a package, Leica’s cameras and lenses are special.  I don’t think it is any one thing, but a combinaton - if you get it, then I’m sure it is reflected in your images.  If not, I’m also sure Sonys, Nikons & Canons will work well, if not better.

 

[pico]

A new Leica owner might be so enamored of the instrument that he changes his approach so he makes appealing images. It is also possible that the camera before his Leica was a POS.

 

[IamTheDistance]

As a beginner in the Leica world I should say nothing but, what if we go back to find the origins of the term "Leica look"? Maybe we can find who used the term for the first time and why it was used, and maybe that original Leica look it does not exist anymore and now is a different Leica look. And of course, having tons of possibilities with lens and combinations of sensors + lenses we can get a lot of different Leica looks, as someone said in this topic.

Personally, and this is subjective😆sometimes when I'm scrolling the web, Instagram or a photobook I can spot what are the pictures shot with Leica and I think it's because of the lenses. Some of those pictures were shot on film so sensors have nothing to do here, others were shot on digital. For example, I found a "black and white photos" account on Instagram (Alan Schaller) and while scrolling through his photos I thought. He uses Leica. On that time, I was not a Leica user even I had not have a Leica in my hands. But I knew it was Leica. Why? I can't tell. 

 

[PeterGA]

Quote

 

the first link that popped up when I typed in "The Leica Look" on duck duck go

I think the writer of this article might actually be a poster in this forum - for those who wish to see examples illustrating the 'Leica look' which support his take on the question - this might be a good place to start.

Pete

 

 

[Kwesi]

11 pages in.

So many erstwhile attempts at describing the illusive, so much poetry, perhaps its time for a little prose,

The Leica look is what you get when you mate a leica sensor to a leica lens and press the shutter.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Kwesi said:

The Leica look is what you get when you mate a leica sensor to a leica lens and press the shutter.

... in the dark

 

[dkmoore]

UGH. This is a DUMB argument. 

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb PeterGA:

 

the first link that popped up when I typed in "The Leica Look" on duck duck go

I think the writer of this article might actually be a poster in this forum - for those who wish to see examples illustrating the 'Leica look' which support his take on the question - this might be a good place to start.

Pete

 

 

He’s right. Thanks for posting the link. 

[PeterGA]

4 hours ago, Chaemono said:

He’s right. Thanks for posting the link. 

No problem.

[Fedro]

that is a really well written article - and as always with Irakly great photos to illustrate the concepts too. thanks for posting

That said, I amazed that we are on page 11 of this brand hooliganism

I am not sure if there is a Leica look or not (I think so but that's me), but I know that I look at Leica for several reasons including: super quality, great concepts, legacy etc rather than just a specific look

I have been in love with different looks over the years, Leica of course but also Mamiyas, Canon lenses and currently an X1D. I keep coming back to Leica over the years, but I think it is for a variety of reasons, not just one

[ianman]

6 hours ago, Kwesi said:

The Leica look is what you get when you mate a leica sensor to a leica lens and press the shutter.

AFAIK Leica don't make sensors. And what about film?

[ianman]

Maybe we should get some input from this person... he seems to know a lot about lenses... 😂

This has to be some sort of joke !!!

Edited February 3, 2019 by ianman

[willeica]

14 hours ago, pgk said:

You are right, but that said, I've seen little to convince me of a coherent look across Leica's lenses in the intervening years. Not that that is to belittle Leica's lenses, which have always been of extremely high quality when produced, even if some went on to go through multiple upgrades as the designers were able to better them. As it happens I use the 21mm Super-Elmar which in my opinion is the finest 20/21mm lens that I have used, and from full aperture. I also use the 75mm Summilux and the pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux. These two are softer wide open than many modern lenses, and the 35 especially can be an acquired taste at full aperture. My point? Neither have much in common with the 21mm Super-Elmar other than they are native Leica M lenses. Obviously I am not going to convince those who are 'subjective' in their appreciation of images, however to me this means that, good as the Summiluxes were when they were launched, neither has a 'look' which can be compared to the Super-Elmar.

Adan points out the importance of research into improving lens designs. Any 'look' has to be a constraint if it is of more importance than the elimination of aberrations and distortion. Does this mean that Leica should no longer strive to improve its lenses and to ensure merely that they have an undefinable 'look'?

I am with you on this, Paul. If you want to get a distinctive look, just buy a Summar, the most distinctive 'look provider' of all Leica lenses, and be done with it.  But then, of course, you would have a Summar look rather than a Leica look per se. Film type is probably a greater provider of a different look than lens choice eg Kodachrome, Velvia, T-Max etc. In digital you can do the same with profiles in Lightroom, some of which are provided by Adobe and some by the camera manufacturer with Fujifilm (with their film experience) being the best of the bunch. Leica is somewhat 'behind the curve' on this subject, but then a lot of Leica owners believe that black paint provides the  best 'look'.

Enough of this nonsense, let's go out and take some pictures (not files) and see if we like how they look.

William

[scott kirkpatrick]

Irakly's article is great on the fine points of this subject, and he breaks them all out with examples.  He directs his pictures to a Fellini-esque level.  I liked the one of the skater.  And has anyone figured out where the camera went in the picture of the girl seated at a dinner table, with a mirror behind her.  I enjoy his writing because he is clearly enjoying himself.

Edited February 3, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[Kwesi]

9 hours ago, dkmoore said:

UGH. This is a DUMB argument. 

No argument there

[Dirk Mandeville]

Wonderful article by Irakly. He does a great job of explaining the different technical aspects of Leica cameras/lenses responsible for creating the “Leica Look” as well as describing when and how it applies and when it doesn’t. He dispels the all-or-nothing notion propounded by some in this thread that the look must be seen in every camera/lens combination or it simply doesn’t exist. Or that it simply doesn’t exist because modern lenses differ from vintage lenses, film differs from digital, etc.  The world isn’t all or nothing, Black and White. There are many shades of gray. Who knew?  He also explains some of the technical engineering aspects that make up the “magic pixie dust” that Leica employs in their design and manufacture (who was it that posted the quote, “Magic is just science we don’t understand yet”?).  And he provides good examples showing each aspect of lens and camera design responsible for creating the overall look. I wonder if some of the posters in this thread will now contact him and demand side by side comparisons with other cameras/lenses to “prove” his thesis?

[Dirk Mandeville]

49 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

 And has anyone figured out where the camera went in the picture of the girl seated at a dinner table, with a mirror behind her.  I enjoy his writing because he is clearly enjoying himself.

The angle of the shot is very low, so I think the camera is obscured in the reflection by the girl’s own body. But more importantly, how can we see her back reflected in that mirror at all, given the camera/subject/mirror positioning and angles of view?

[LBJ2]

11 hours ago, IamTheDistance said:

As a beginner in the Leica world I should say nothing but, what if we go back to find the origins of the term "Leica look"? Maybe we can find who used the term for the first time and why it was used, and maybe that original Leica look it does not exist anymore and now is a different Leica look. And of course, having tons of possibilities with lens and combinations of sensors + lenses we can get a lot of different Leica looks, as someone said in this topic.

Personally, and this is subjective😆sometimes when I'm scrolling the web, Instagram or a photobook I can spot what are the pictures shot with Leica and I think it's because of the lenses. Some of those pictures were shot on film so sensors have nothing to do here, others were shot on digital. For example, I found a "black and white photos" account on Instagram (Alan Schaller) and while scrolling through his photos I thought. He uses Leica. On that time, I was not a Leica user even I had not have a Leica in my hands. But I knew it was Leica. Why? I can't tell. 

 

You are indeed on to something. Keep at it. IMO It does take a practiced eye and the more you work with and scrutinize your own files, you will begin to notice too. Hard to measure and describe for those that can't or do not want to see it. It is a combination of factors as I listed previously that can easily be disturbed and rob "the look" from images. In my experince, harsh lighting is the most destructive. It's not a binary experience and so for those that need/want facts and figures, it will never make sense. But as I posted earlier in this thread after many of my own unscientific blind test scenarios among friends, family, and associates I've come to the conclusion there are some that can see it and some that can't. Just as in those that think of wine in red and white only but if you take the time to learn and practice wine tasting you begin to smell/taste distinct characteristics but there again there are those who just can't or will not.

FWIW, the very same type of discussion goes on and on and on with regards to Zeiss glass. In the case of Zeiss, I have found there is one lens with extreme or pronounced what some call Zeiss pop or 3D effect. It's the Zeiss Distagon 35/2. If you ever get a chance to try this lens for yourself I think you too will see a pronounced effect with this one particular lens. 

Due to the many uncontrollable factors involved in posting an image online or in forums and how people are viewing the same, the best advise IMO for those that care to, is to compare for yourself with your own images. Side by side. Come to your own conclusions. If you do get to the point that you can "truly see" distinct characteristics among multiple varieties of glass, not just Leica, it can be a very enjoyable and enlightening experience. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

20 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

Wonderful article by Irakly. He does a great job of explaining the different technical aspects of Leica cameras/lenses responsible for creating the “Leica Look” as well as describing when and how it applies and when it doesn’t. He dispels the all-or-nothing notion propounded by some in this thread that the look must be seen in every camera/lens combination or it simply doesn’t exist. Or that it simply doesn’t exist because modern lenses differ from vintage lenses, film differs from digital, etc.  The world isn’t all or nothing, Black and White. There are many shades of gray. Who knew?  He also explains some of the technical engineering aspects that make up the “magic pixie dust” that Leica employs in their design and manufacture (who was it that posted the quote, “Magic is just science we don’t understand yet”?).  And he provides good examples showing each aspect of lens and camera design responsible for creating the overall look. I wonder if some of the posters in this thread will now contact him and demand side by side comparisons with other cameras/lenses to “prove” his thesis?

Yes, it's always good to see someone prepared to back up their statements with examples and scientific rationale.

😉