The main problem of the "Leica look"

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I entirely agree with this. And it fantastic to have already the Leica look on camera instead of spending time on PP. I want to have a great DNG on camera and apply a very slight PP. No vice versa, of course.
And I guess we all here agree that the M system is an incredible tool. And as I told here previously, I enjoy shooting more with Leica than with Nikon, for example, for many reasons: the rangefinder first, IQ, different and more unique workflow, weight, size, and much more. But there are many factors together that make the M a terrific system for me. No doubt about it. 
But my point is that I don't buy Leica stuff for the look, but for all the rest. Does it make sense? 

Yes it makes sense. Many will agree. I was lead to Leica by the look and every once in a while I am rewarded when I manage to capture the look, or as the OP stated sometimes we take the look for granted or blinded by familiarity...or until someone from my non photographer circle  singles out unknown to them, Leica images and recognizes something special.

I've done the blind tests with family and friends with the Zeiss POP specifically (not Leica yet). Some can see it, some just can't-ever. One family member hits it 100% in every blind test I've presented (that's unusual). But II have to be careful--too much is too much and well, I don't want to lose any family or friends 🙃

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[LBJ2]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

I see the pop. Do you still use your sony ? If not, why? Was it the look? 

Good that you see the Pop even with heavy file downsizing to meet forum posting criteria and through whatever monitor/lighting you are viewing. I can tell you from experience many will not see the pop in this image. 

This photo was taken with the A7rIII. I now use the A7rIV. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[Jeff S]

45 minutes ago, Steven said:

Unfortunately (for you), 90% of the content I consume, and that's true for 90% of the world, is now online, and not printed. I'll accept the challenge for a digital blind test, though, if you're up for it. 

 

True, no one is questioning that. "The best camera is the one you have with you" bla bla bla. That doesn't mean that a great photographer cannot lust, or enjoy, the best gear. As Steve McCurry said in the video I shared, "some feel the owe it to their photography to use the best gear". Doesn't mean the best gear is the same for everyone. And doesn't mean that they'd fail to excel without the best gear. 

Other experienced photographers have been fooled...

https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/
 

Of course people like to enjoy the best gear.  The thread is about a unique Leica look. My point is that there is no singular look, and that one can produce same or similar (or ‘better’ or ‘worse’) with less expensive (or more expensive) gear.

Jeff

[pippy]

15 minutes ago, Dennis said:

...my point is that I don't buy Leica stuff for the look, but for all the rest. Does it make sense?...

If, Dennis, by "all the rest" you mean the whole M shooting experience and all that encompasses then I couldn't agree more. I did, too. I didn't choose Leica because I knew their lenses rendered differently to any other manufacturer. I chose Leica because of how one approaches shooting with a Leica. The even nicer thing is that all the 'other' facets of shooting with a leica - lens rendering perhaps? - come along included as part of the whole package.

Philip.

[Dennis]

So, what about this. We use the same film for two different cameras. One for a Leica M with a Leica lenses, and the other for a no-rangefinder cameras with whatever lens.

Then we print. There is where you can maybe found the Leica look. Not in digital.

 

[Dennis]

1 minute ago, pippy said:

If, Dennis, by "all the rest" you mean the whole M shooting experience and all that encompasses

YES, this! IT'S BEAUTIFUL

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nearly 40 years ago I completed and undergraduate project comparing Leica and Minolta lens systems via MTF and prints. This answered the question effectively enough in that there was no discernible technical (MTF) difference between the two and nobody could identify from the prints which system had been used for which. Unless something has significant changed since then (it hasn't) then this remains the case to this day. Individual lenses show their own characteristics and some have a distinct 'signature' (such as the 75/780mm Summiluxes) but so do lenses from other makers. To have a distinctive 'look' all the lenses would have to have matched design requirements and whilst this is possible (series of cine lenses are matched in this way) it is not the case with Leica who have been making '35mm' format lenses to differing design requirements for nearly 100 years. Leica make great lenses but they do not have a distinctive and common look. Anyone wo thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

[LBJ2]

40 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So, what about this. We use the same film for two different cameras. One for a Leica M with a Leica lenses, and the other for a no-rangefinder cameras with whatever lens.

Then we print. There is where you can maybe found the Leica look. Not in digital.

 

I'll take you up on this offer! Jumping in my car now and if I can get through Aduana quickly this time of year, I should be there in about 2 hours. So please crack open the Tequila ( FYI I only drink 100% agave). Oh and I'll need to borrow your film camera...and some film...and maybe you printer and some nice photo paper too 😎🤪

“Pa arriba', pa' bajo, pa' al centro, pa' dentro!”

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[Dennis]

1 minute ago, LBJ2 said:

So please crack open the Tequila ( FYI I only drink 100% agave). Oh and I'll need to borrow your film camera...and some film...and maybe you printer and some nice photo paper too 😎🤪

I can help you with the Tequila for sure, or Mezcal. Film cameras 🤔 I have a Nikon FM w/ 50/1.4 AIS and a nice wood pinhole. No printer and not films, except for these .... They have at least 14 years. About 55 rolls

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!

[Jeff S]

58 minutes ago, Steven said:

I strongly disagree. 

Ditto.

I mostly look at prints (since 1974), outside the Leica bubble.

Jeff

Edited December 28, 2020 by Jeff S

[cboy]

5 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

An image I took with a Zeiss Batis 135 ( Sonnar) from a Sony sensor with one of thickest sensor stacks on the market, even post processed, is able to present what I think display characteristics associated with the Zeiss 3D Pop. * If you don't see the pop, step back from your monitor 1 to 2 M.

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!

I really doubt most people can distinguish between - zeiss pop, leica look & medium format look with todays modern lenses. Its just a branded term for their own 3D realism since collectively a line of lens have characteristically similiar optical formula, that is spread across and tweaked to varying focal lengths and along with precision ( tried & true) manufacturing processes to deliver consistently repeatable results.

Mind you i do believe its has a lot to to do with the composition of their glass. Their material selection is what distinguishes them from other manufactures since due to cost of production optical choice will be limited. Whereas Leica has more 'exotic' glass types they use, but less so with their summarit line. Whilst this only one factor in the production it is the 'special secret sauce'.

Higher refractive index bends more light baby! Why is it diamonds are so alluring, could it be their high refractive index.Hmmm Lol

Everyone is just distinguishing optical character, none more evident than leicas line of  M f(x)lenses since they been tweaking them for more than half a century. However for leicas line of SL and TL lens distinguishing them apart from just having 3D realism (for lack of a better word) is more difficult as their legacy is not as pronounced. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by cboy

[pgk]

28 minutes ago, cboy said:

IMind you i do believe its has a lot to to do with the composition of their glass. Their material selection is what distinguishes them from other manufactures since due to cost of production optical choice will be limited. Whereas Leica has more 'exotic' glass types they use, but less so with their summarit line. Whilst this only one factor in the production it is the 'special secret sauce'.

I suggest that you have a look at a variety of manufacturer's lens designs. Many use varying refractive index glasses and aspheres just like Leica - they probably use the same glass catalogues - no 'secret sauce' at all. Designers can now predict outcomes of designs such as bokeh (Zeiss have published about this) so they can design to specific requirements better than ever before. But Leica's own M lenses have been designed by a variety of different people and design teams, even in different countries, and some have actually been produced by external manufacturers for Leica. There is no absolute continuity which obviously means that there is no specific 'look'. The Leica M camera is unique in that it still operates and feels like its did in its original production model in the 1950s. This though does not mean that it automatically has its own individualistic 'look' no matter how much we want to believe its legacy suggests that it should. Can we move on from the land of camera mythology please?

[LBJ2]

54 minutes ago, cboy said:

I really doubt most people can distinguish between - zeiss pop, leica look & medium format look with todays modern lenses. Its just a branded term for their own 3D realism since collectively a line of lens have characteristically similiar optical formula, that is spread across and tweaked to varying focal lengths and along with precision ( tried & true) manufacturing processes to deliver consistently repeatable results.

Mind you i do believe its has a lot to to do with the composition of their glass. Their material selection is what distinguishes them from other manufactures since due to cost of production optical choice will be limited. Whereas Leica has more 'exotic' glass types they use, but less so with their summarit line. Whilst this only one factor in the production it is the 'special secret sauce'.

Higher refractive index bends more light baby! Why is it diamonds are so alluring, could it be their high refractive index.Hmmm Lol

Everyone is just distinguishing optical character, none more evident than leicas line of  M f(x)lenses since they been tweaking them for more than half a century. However for leicas line of SL and TL lens distinguishing them apart from just having 3D realism (for lack of a better word) is more difficult as their legacy is not as pronounced. 

I posted this ealier on post #39 of this thread

According to Peter Karbe, part of the Leica look is of course in the design, treatment of the elements e.g., fine polishing and the lens manufacturing process. As described in the Youtube video titled "Leica M Lens System with Peter Karbe" September 15, 2020. Technically, all repeatable processes, which is why we see the look across years of lens redesigns, film and digital cameras. From my understanding, almost all ( but not all new) lenses start with basically the same base optical design and in there lies the optical formula that can be replicated even when adding more elements to accommodate AF/OSS or more specialized elements and technique we see in modern lenses to perfect the light path.

I listened to an interview with the modern day owner of Cooke Optics and he said "the Cooke look is the easiest thing to design in their modern optics" That's how they are able to maintain the Cooke look all these years. Many of us know the Cooke look as Cooke lenses have been used for years in the many movies, classics, and TV shows we all have seen and see. https://www.cookeoptics.com/t/filmed-with-cooke.html

I am confident there is something to a recognizable look and it is known, understood and repeatable. I am also confident that many can't identify the look and think the rest of us gone mad. I am also confident that I can't identify any particular repeatable look to any of my Sony glass even the most stunning Sony glass that produces superb micro contrast/separation/depth with the best optics. Each Sony GM lenses seems to be better than that last new GM lens. 

I like how Ashwin Rao describes the Leica look in his Leica Look image I posted in this thread :

"Last night, on returning home, I grazed through some images taken earlier in the evening, and came accross this one (processed in Lightroom 3). There’s a certain roundedness, a certain 3 dimensionality, a certain sharpness in the focused areas and softness in the background, that’s hard to find elsewhere. By no means do I mean toi present this image as an example remarkable photography. Rather, to me, there’s something here in which I clearly see the ” Leica Look “

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[LBJ2]

56 minutes ago, pgk said:

I suggest that you have a look at a variety of manufacturer's lens designs. Many use varying refractive index glasses and aspheres just like Leica - they probably use the same glass catalogues - no 'secret sauce' at all. Designers can now predict outcomes of designs such as bokeh (Zeiss have published about this) so they can design to specific requirements better than ever before. But Leica's own M lenses have been designed by a variety of different people and design teams, even in different countries, and some have actually been produced by external manufacturers for Leica. There is no absolute continuity which obviously means that there is no specific 'look'. The Leica M camera is unique in that it still operates and feels like its did in its original production model in the 1950s. This though does not mean that it automatically has its own individualistic 'look' no matter how much we want to believe its legacy suggests that it should. Can we move on from the land of camera mythology please?

There is however, the original optics designs used over the many years by different designers. As I commented previously, most modern lens designs are based upon these original optics designs of so many years ago. Repeatable with early 20th century technology as well as today's technology. 

I also posted the example of Carl Zeiss designed Distagon and Sonnar Zeiss Batis lenses most likely produced by Tamron in Japan or Thailand, yet the so-called Zeiss pop signature is perceived by many more than just me in the Carl Zeiss designed produced by a third-party, in "some other country" modern and mirrorless Batis lenses. 

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!

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[jdlaing]

The lenses may be produced by a third party as a finished product but the elements are ground and polished by Zeiss. 

[pippy]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

...Many use varying refractive index glasses and aspheres just like Leica - they probably use the same glass catalogues - no 'secret sauce' at all...

With the greatest respect, Paul, and while I agree with pretty much every thing you have written here, I do remember reading, back in the 1980's, that Lietz did utilise unique to Leitz formulae of different glasses for their lenses in comparison to their competitors - mainly in the addition of rare earth elements aspect IIRC - so possibly not all is shrouded in world of Mythical Beasts and Iguanas...

Philip.

Edited December 29, 2020 by pippy

[earleygallery]

This topic crops up from time to time. My response is the same - the 'Leica Look' means many things.

I suspect that it originated from the look of photos taken with a 'minature' format hand held camera with high quality lenses, when most others were using medium format TLR's and the like or plate cameras. The Leica look was what made HCB and others so famous, a much more candid style of photography from users of Leica and then other brands which followed.

I still think that's a major part of the 'Leica look' - but what about the SLR's and then the digital cameras? Well then it's more to do with the lenses. The look is more due to the signature of the more modern lenses, although we need to remember that not all Leica lenses are made by Leica (which then makes me wonder how other manufacturers manage to build in the Leica look to their products!).

So, IMHO yes, there is a Leica look but it's not one look and it 's not exlcusive.

[Ray Vonn]

To those that posted pics in addition to words - thanks.   

[250swb]

If there is a 'Leica look' it is because Leica (along with other miniature camera manufacturers) gave the photographer the ability to use his or her feet. Feet are the most valuable accessory a Leica photographer could have (apologies to those who can't move, there are workarounds). It has always allowed them to move in, out, or sideways to compose an image so they can accentuate the subject of the photo while at the same time shooting quickly to make at least one photo where there isn't a telegraph pole coming out of the subjects head.

If for example you look at HCB's images there is very little that's distracting in the background or to the sides of the frame, and yet the background is still an integral part of the context. This is because he used his feet and looked at both the foreground and background before pressing the shutter. He then edited his images aggressively. Bring it up to date and you can have photographers such as Trent Parke (whether or not he uses a Leica) who can make the most complex compositions and the eye is drawn to what he wants you to see. Same for Winogrand etc. My criticism of 'the modern Leica look' is that simply pressing the shutter on a Leica camera is enough work for the day. People do a lap of honour for getting the subject in focus, or if they capture somebody walking down the street or doing an everyday job in an everyday way it's time to crack the champagne. Gone is careful accurate and thoughtful framing (feet again), and in comes an authenticity simply based on ownership of a Leica, a bogus substitute for skill in many cases. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ouroboros]

On 12/27/2020 at 11:35 PM, LBJ2 said:

This is one of the best examples of the "Leica Look" on the internet. 

 

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!

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/10/11/the-leica-look-comments-thoughts-by-ashwin-rao/

If that can be proven, I'll give up photography.