The "Leica Look" is real!

[budjames]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

Bud here boasts whenever he can that he has two M10s. This makes me a bit suspicious. Then he chooses to use the Leica in Australia and in New Zealand while the Fuji gets to shoot Italy, Iceland, Spain, China, and Japan. 

Not boasting, but stating facts. I apologize if you are offended as that is not my intent.

More facts... Australia and New Zealand were shot in November as we were there for a month to pick up our son who finished a semester abroad at Auckland University. The other countries mentioned were vacations enjoyed over a two year period, 2016 and 2017, and shot with Fuji X before I owned any Leica gear.

As I said previously, I still use my Fuji gear, it's a great system, but now I use it mostly for when medium and long zooms fit the situation.

Now you can go back to hating on me as this is my final post here. So have a good time and congratulations on regretting that I started this post in the first place. Have a nice life.

Bud

Edited January 29, 2019 by budjames

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

No hating here! Sorry but I read these 'Leica look' posts from time to time, always just words, never photos. Whenever examples are asked for it's always the same kind of defensive response, not photos.

If the 'Leica look' is so obvious it should be simple to post some examples - same subject/lighting/time/exposure etc. and let us pick the obviously Leica shot.

There's so many different types of Leica lens, different digital sensors, different films one can use, not to mention all the variations in post processing that it just can't be. How can a £99 Panasonic (with Leica lens) have the same look as an M2 with Tri X and a Noctilux? How can a CL with kit zoom have the same look as an SL fitted with a 1930's Summar? Too many variables. There are many 'Leica looks'.

But, please post the examples, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[pico]

7 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

8 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

[... please see his post ...]

earleygallery's post should be cast in concrete.

 

 

[JazzyMac]

I guess I assumed this is a Leica forum, and most people here have Leicas, have seen Leicas, know what Leicas are capable of, and do not doubt the "Leica Look."  It's not like we're going to a Canon forum and saying, "Leica Look is real, here is proof between Canon and Leica!"  That would be sort of weird I think.  That said.  Let me scrub through a few photos of my dog (RIP).  It's pretty simple.  I'm not one for posting photos on the net, but if it's such a big deal....  Incidentally, I found the ones where right before work I decided to entertain her...ha ha, who am I kidding--entertain myself--by subjecting her to a photo shoot with my Canon 5D II with 35mmL at the time.  The photo taken with the M8.2 was when I FIRST learned how to use the Leica...maybe my 10th photo.

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!

[JazzyMac]

Speaking of switching up cameras, I went through a huge stretch of time where I was too scared to use the Leica for anything.  It was small enough--smaller than an SLR, but it was too big for a pocket, purse...the Summicron didn't take photos at night.  Shrug, I had this expensive ass camera that literally "worked" only part of the time when I was never near it!  So I went through point and shoots including the D-Lux 4, X-1, Fujis, etc.  Once I got over my fear I had fun.  

My first outing with my M9-P (and 50mm Lux), the camera slipped off its strap hook and crashed to the concrete, seemingly 10,000 feet below.  It was only four feet, but...my heart couldn't tell the difference. Years later, still going strong.

[stefanusj]

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

No hating here! Sorry but I read these 'Leica look' posts from time to time, always just words, never photos. Whenever examples are asked for it's always the same kind of defensive response, not photos.

If the 'Leica look' is so obvious it should be simple to post some examples - same subject/lighting/time/exposure etc. and let us pick the obviously Leica shot.

There's so many different types of Leica lens, different digital sensors, different films one can use, not to mention all the variations in post processing that it just can't be. How can a £99 Panasonic (with Leica lens) have the same look as an M2 with Tri X and a Noctilux? How can a CL with kit zoom have the same look as an SL fitted with a 1930's Summar? Too many variables. There are many 'Leica looks'.

But, please post the examples, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

i used to have the similar opinions, but... around 3-4 years ago (i use sony a7ii+55zeiss), me and my friend (he use M240+lux50) are shooting at pasar pabean, and after we compare the results of our photos, i realize that i know what "leica looks" is.  From my amateur eyes, it is a combination of unique color (which is red and orange) and depth that makes it differ from other brand. it have different mood, so my advice is: just experienced it yourself...and you will know what i mean.

Edited January 30, 2019 by stefanusj
typo

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb stefanusj:

From my amateur eyes, it is a combination of unique color (which is red and orange) and depth that makes it differ from other brand.

I would add green to this. 

[Chaemono]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb budjames:

Now you can go back to hating on me as this is my final post here. So have a good time and congratulations on regretting that I started this post in the first place. Have a nice life.

Bud

I think it’s a great thread but I didn’t realize that you were so thin-skined. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. Nice pictures BTW. Thanks for posting the links. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Chaemono

[erl]

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.

 

[Chaemono]

Very touching story. Thanks for sharing. We should start another thread ‘The Leica Moment” and share our coming out experiences. 

[erl]

33 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Very touching story. Thanks for sharing. We should start another thread ‘The Leica Moment” and share our coming out experiences. 

Apologies to Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, but I did say to my first Leica (M6) following my wife's comment, "this could be the beginning of a great friendship". 😉

I could easily start 'The Leica Moment' thread with another 'coming out' (recent) event. I think I survived it!

[PeterGA]

Always interesting to see a visitor's take on Sydney OP - thanks for posting some lovely shots!

 

As a resident who lives on a beach in Sydney I can attest to the following...

Sydney sun light has a sparkle to it if that is what OP is referring to. I can attest to the difference between Sydney and Melbourne light - Melbourne being quite dreary in comparison. Also many of OP's images are around the harbour and there you get massive sparkling light - the Opera House is reflective enough - but a sunny day around the Harbour with light bouncing off the water is quite special. 

I can post similar shots though made with Leica OR Fuji which evidence same colour pop due to light. What Fuji can't match is the 3D dimensionality that Leica fast lenses at or around wide open deliver- the Leica POP has more gravitas - it is heavier. I get many comments from non photographers being able to pick the difference between certain Leica shots and other camera/lens shots quite easily - it is always about the way subject seperation is achieved and perceived with Leica.

[otto.f]

13 hours ago, earleygallery said:

We need some direct comparison shots to show the difference between 'Leica look' and 'no Leica look' - any to share?

We don’t need that at all

[pgk]

Look everyone, lens designers are NOT magicians. They work at far higher levels than most of us can understand, correcting , adjusting and modifying designs until they reach precise and pre-determined goals. Zeiss have published a paper explaining how bokeh and dof are both complex parameters which can be affected by design decisions and enhanced or modified by changes in design. I have a copy of a booklet by Athur Cox published by Aldis (British lens manufacturer absorbed by the Rank Organisation as were many others) produced in WWII called "Your Camera Lens" with details of lens aberrations and design (PM me you email address if you want a copy and I can add you to the Dropbox folder - its 15MB as a scan). It was a reprint from a pre-war magazine and despite being aimed at interested photographers it remains anything but basic. Today the last bastions of lens difficulty, like ultra-wide and fast zooms, are being made and are extraordinarily good. So thinking that there is a widespread (throughout time and the entire lens range) unique 'look' to Leica lenses is clearly just not possible. There can not be a single trait which distinguished Leica lenses from all others. Apart from anything else such a 'look' would have been copied by now by others.

What seems to have always been important to Leica has been to stay at the forefront of lens design, and don't forget that at times this has apparently meant buying in other manufacturer's designs too (the Super-Angulon was a Schneider design, etc.). So any 'look' could never have been throughout the lens line-up. Some early designs by Leica were quickly replaced as better designs were produced (28 and 35mm lenses went through a good number of iterations). And Leica lenses have always been 'good' and some designs remain so even decades after production ceased.

So to finish, the unique 'look' is not a magical property made in Hogwarts, but Leica lenses' abilities are a function of quality designs and the very specific requirements of them (Leica M rangefinder designs have always been somewhat different from many reflex designs, at shorter focal lengths anyway, which confers different constraints on their designers). Today Leica faces competition from many manufacturers who also have great lens design teams, and more are no doubt on their way, and trying to compete using mythical properties doesn't generally work in the modern marketplace. Leica's heritage as a top notch lens producer together with its unique and high quality products are being done a mis-service if they need to have such properties ascribed to them. Leica produce fabulous lenses but they do not use any fairy dust in their manufacturing processes. As I said before, if you can see something in the images that is different from any others then there is a measurable reason for it.

Edited January 30, 2019 by pgk

[jaapv]

Another advantage Leica has is a archive of lens designs and theory going back 150 years, which gives present day designers an unique wealth of experience to draw on.

[Ray Vonn]

I wonder if the "Leica Look" is a result of us having to use the rangefinder to focus, thereby forcing us to manually compose and think differently, resulting in an arguably better image than from an AF camera?  Specifically, there's more usually more focus points/ leading lines in images I've taken since owning a Leica due to the process involved in making the image.  The rangefinder - it's a different process to manual focusing on the other types of camera isn't it.  Surely that's reflected in the images? I don't think the rendition I see from an M10 is particularly different or better than other cameras, but the images seem to be better, I reckon, due to the image taking process.  One thing I am wondering about though - this penchant for what is described as a "dreamy" lens.   This I believe makes up part of the "Leica Look", you know, so you can "paint pictures".  One thing I'm curious to find out in my Leica use in the coming years is the extent to which "Dreamy" really means un-sharp images.  Something that gets panned on other systems but seems to be often lauded by Leica users.  All part of the experience of owning an M I guess.

[evikne]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Another advantage Leica has is a archive of lens designs and theory going back 150 years, which gives present day designers an unique wealth of experience to draw on.

And all the lenses are still useable on any M camera and give every Leica user a unique wealth of choices for their preferred “Leica look”.

Edited January 30, 2019 by evikne

[earleygallery]

6 hours ago, otto.f said:

We don’t need that at all

Why not? This is a photo forum and we're discussing the 'Leica look' yet no direct comparisons from anyone (the dog photos are different lighting etc).

Let's see the difference please.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[earleygallery]

58 minutes ago, Ray Vonn said:

I wonder if the "Leica Look" is a result of us having to use the rangefinder to focus, thereby forcing us to manually compose and think differently, resulting in an arguably better image than from an AF camera? 

So you're saying you don't get this 'Leica look' from a CL or SL or S or ..........?

I have argued in the past that the 'Leica look' some people refer to is more the style of photography. Remember, when the Leica first came out it allowed photographers to work differently than they could with large or medium format cameras that were the norm back then. This resulted in the more casual 'reportage' style of photography that people such as HCB were known for.

But the OP is saying Leica lenses give a unique Leica look.

This is especially interesting when you consider that not all Leica lenses are even made by Leica. I have a Leica lens that was made by Minolta and I had Leica digital compact lenses that were actually made by Panasonic.

I should believe that these are just the same look as my 1930's Summar and my 1980's Summicron, and these will be just the same as the latest Leica APO lenses. That's some kind of magic brand consistency there!

[Dirk Mandeville]

9 hours ago, Chaemono said:

I think it’s a great thread but I didn’t realize that you were so thin-skined. 

He’s not thin-skinned. You were just being a jerk. As evidenced by multiple posts accusing him of being a dealer, demanding he provide specific testing conditions to “prove” his opinion, etc.  All of this was unnecessary and detrimental to discussion of the topic and the enjoyment of forum participants. You don’t have to agree with O.P.  But you also don’t have to be confrontational and directly accuse him of bias for some hidden agenda. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Dirk Mandeville