The main problem of the "Leica look"

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/10/2021 at 8:06 AM, Chaemono said:

Sorry, I had read "with another Leica camera." Different bridge, different light now with the M10-P and the 75 Summicron. The shallower the DOF, the more pronounced the depth effect due to the gradual transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus areas, but it's also obvious here.

Less compressed JPEG here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9tc4xH/

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!

ISO 200 f/2 @1/4000 sec.

Thank you for the follow-up!  A quick side by side compare with your first example, the light was almost perfect on that last bridge image which really accentuated the look , I do see the DoF pop in this image too. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jon Warwick]

I think the Leica look partly owes to people often shooting wider open, and an abundance of micro-contrast and fall-off in focus, which combine to allow the subject to "pop".

However, I do wonder whether this look could be done at least as well, if not much better, by going up a film/sensor format size, ie, from full-frame 35mm into medium format.

Every time I look at images from (say) the Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX 100, I personally see even more "3D pop".

I'm not sure it's just the impact of needing a longer lens on medium format to match the equivalent on 35mm. Indeed, I wonder if more color tonal gradations  (ie, better separation of very similar colors like the subtle nuances of the green in tree foliage) does actually exist in medium format (due to larger sensors and often more megapixels), creating the impression that the subject has more shape and 3D'ness to it?

 

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[oldwino]

The “Leica Look” used to be, before the fetish of shooting wide open all of the time descended upon us, a slight glow around the highlights (from undercorrected spherical aberrations), detailed rendering of fine details, and a flat-ish contrast. 
 

The “Leica Look” now is really just their answer to what Zeiss has been doing for years. 

[Krusty]

I know that this is a Leica forum but the Zeiss Look is often combined with a 3D look. Which Leica lenses create a look like this? Does it always have to be a noctilux or can it be a Summilux or even a summicron to get results like this? (See below, all Zeiss lenses)
 

i think you need at least 35mm and not less… best I think is 50.

what about the voigtländer 1.4 or 1.2

 

*Edit* please see also: 
https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/02/zeiss-otus-55mm-f14-apo-distagon-t-vs_42.html?m=1

 

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 July 5, 2022 by Krusty

[Beauregard]

For film M camera's.
I don't think the difference between a Leica M6, a Bessa R, Zeiss Ikon
would be that big. With the same film and the same Leica M lens ...
I like the Bessa R camera's, as I don't like reloading film on the M.

On digital. I prefer CCD over CMOS.
The M9 has a different look than the M10.

Sony does make the Nikon sensors,
Nikon has better color processing.

The photographer also plays a part, If you know how to "abuse" the characteristics of a certain lens.
One will have 3D pop, or glow all the time and another photographer will never capture It.

It is possible to make Sony look good, It takes more work.
I don't have Sony lenses.
Sony camera's can be moddefied to have the same filter stack as Leica.
So rangefinder lenses work better.

I shot this vinyl cover with a 80mm summilux R on an Alpha.
I have Leica shots that have less of "a Leica look".
I also have the Zeiss 100mm Makro Planar, If It were 80mm long, I don't think It would be able to give that color pop,
being colder. Leica balances colors very well.
I would also say there is visable 3D pop.

I use a lot of Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander glass. Some Takumars too.
Think they are all great. Leica has the most natural colors, some lenses have a very nice glow.
Zeiss has that cool 3D pop and cine look, planar bokeh can be not so nice.
VM lenses are cool too.
My 35mm 1.7 and 50mm 1.5 3D pop quite often and look more Leica'ish then Zeissy.

My issue with Leica camera's is that they don't repair M9 or old S sensors.
And they break down, Phase one CCD's or Pentax 645D does not.

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 April 20, 2023 by Beauregard

[Beauregard]

35mm Elmarit R on a Canon 5D MKII are the 2 pictures in the middle.
On the left and right, Contax G 45mm Zeiss, that does superb 3D pop, but It was shot to make It calm, no 3D wanted.
The Leica lens does way more 3D pop here than the famous Zeiss.
Leica can do It too, If you wan't It to.
At least my 35mm Elmarit, 80mm summilux, 100mm Makro Apo ... my summicron 50 R type 2 is less impressive,
I got the summicron 50mm R type one some time ago and It does look like It has more 3D pop and a cooler glow.
Summar 50mm won't superpop, It's a romantic glow machine.
Summarit 50mm 1.5, I use It for portraits, with It's groovy bokeh and glow. It is not super sharp and to get stuff popping,
you have to photograph It sharp, with lightning that sculpts the form and the right distance, angle, background and transition
It's about seperating but not with bokeh nesseseraly, I have phase one/schneider product shots that really pop and there is no blur.

It does not have to be a Noctilux. It can be Elmarit ... It just needs to be able to render It.
50mm f1 or 80mm f1.4 just give you mega bokeh pics, rather flat.
To pop, better use an f stop where you get more sharpness and let your object merge into the space.

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!

[newtoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/19/2021 at 11:31 AM, Jon Warwick said:

I think the Leica look partly owes to people often shooting wider open, and an abundance of micro-contrast and fall-off in focus, which combine to allow the subject to "pop".

However, I do wonder whether this look could be done at least as well, if not much better, by going up a film/sensor format size, ie, from full-frame 35mm into medium format.

Every time I look at images from (say) the Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX 100, I personally see even more "3D pop".

I'm not sure it's just the impact of needing a longer lens on medium format to match the equivalent on 35mm. Indeed, I wonder if more color tonal gradations  (ie, better separation of very similar colors like the subtle nuances of the green in tree foliage) does actually exist in medium format (due to larger sensors and often more megapixels), creating the impression that the subject has more shape and 3D'ness to it?

 

 

Of course but who wants to drag MF equipment around......?

[strangeboy]

On 12/26/2020 at 2:53 PM, farnz said:

Clearly you need to purchase a pair of Leica's 'Photo Viewing Spectacles' that will give any picture viewed through them taken on any camera the 'Leica look'.

The alternative is several stiff whiskies - that usually does the trick and works on females too.

Pete.

I just found this post, and almost choked on this reply... 😂

[Al Brown]

Leica look is real. It was described in The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy (1977 edition) under the "Pulse profiles and dispersion measures" section as "a stacked plot of radio signals form a pulsar". It is also the look I give to random Leica M owners when I see they have their red dot gaffer taped.

[Alberti]

On 12/6/2023 at 4:54 PM, strangeboy said:

On 12/26/2020 at 9:53 PM, farnz said:

Clearly you need to purchase a pair of Leica's 'Photo Viewing Spectacles' that will give any picture viewed through them taken on any camera the 'Leica look'.

The alternative is several stiff whiskies - that usually does the trick and works on females too.

Pete.

I just found this post, and almost choked on this reply... 😂

I have noted Pete likes soda’s and caffè latte : that works on males as well as on females. 😚

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!

(Eindhoven, Leica M-P_)

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Alberti

[Alberti]

As for me, having a whiskey works on males neither females:

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!

At least I expect not this is a leica look we like

M9M

[sillbeers15]

If the 'Leica look" imaginary description already existed during emulsion film camera days, doesn't it means that all that matters is the lens character that gives rise to the 'Leica look'?

So coming back to modern digital sensor piece of the puzzle, all that can matter is the coverglass thickness as the color palette of RAW files can be adjusted in post process.

Am I missing anything else?

So attaching a Leica lens to any mirrorless body with a  sensor coverglass of 0.8mm thickness (as in any Leica sensors) followed by post process color adjustment should in theory replicate the same 'Leica look' produced by a Leica digital camera?

 

[Al Brown]

44 minutes ago, sillbeers15 said:

So attaching a Leica lens to any mirrorless body with a  sensor coverglass of 0.8mm thickness (as in any Leica sensors) followed by post process color adjustment should in theory replicate the same 'Leica look' produced by a Leica digital camera?

 

Nah, the look is incapable of being replicated if your "any mirrorless body" 's bottom plate does not have the protective plastic foil still on.

[lct]

15 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

So attaching a Leica lens to any mirrorless body with a  sensor coverglass of 0.8mm thickness (as in any Leica sensors) followed by post process color adjustment should in theory replicate the same 'Leica look' produced by a Leica digital camera?

Not in my experience. Curiously enough i prefer (for now) the Sigma look with M lenses. It is subjective of course and i don't know how long it will take but with the same kind of 61mp FF sensor i tend to use my recently acquired Sigma FPL more so than my otherwise favorite Leica M11. Don't tell this M11 bashers there are 2 or 3 of them on this forum 😄

 

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Not in my experience. Curiously enough i prefer (for now) the Sigma look with M lenses. It is subjective of course and i don't know how long it will take but with the same kind of 61mp FF sensor i tend to use my recently acquired Sigma FPL more so than my otherwise favorite Leica M11. Don't tell this M11 bashers there are 2 or 3 of them on this forum 😄

 

Since my purchase of a Nikor Z 600mm F4 VRS TC prime lens beyond my comfort zone of using the Leica SL2 w. Sigma 150-600mm F6.3 zoom (only option) for wildlife application I've picked up a Nikon Z9 body. Having had the experience of using the Z9, I realised how premative the SL2 is in comparison from the three major mirrorless body makers Sony, Nikon & Canon which all offer comparable mirrorless bodies with way faster sensor readout speed, AFC calculation & subject detection selection robustness since the beginning of the SL vs only Sony A7 in 2015 with marginal difference lead by Sony then. Now after 9 years and into the third generation of SL3, the difference widened.

From my own experience, I've come to realise much of the contrast, rendering of bokeh and a part of the color is related to the light fall off determined by the lens design. Further post process adjustments on contrast & color from RAW files can compensate how each image sensor interpret the RAW images straight out of each camera.

My curiosity lead me to move both my Leica M 0.95 Noctilux & 21mm Summilux to my Z9 body via two Techart AF adaptors which I was using both M lenses on my SL2 earlier. Surprisingly the AF adapters worked well so far. I'm doing more trials to determine if my idea can yield the imaginary results I'm happy from the past experience of using Leica SL/2 bodies on portraits photography application.

[Herr Barnack]

The main problem of the "Leica look" is that it costs a fuckload of money.  😒

Edited April 29, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[Al Brown]

5 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

The main problem of the "Leica look" is that it costs a fuckload of money.  😒

Oh, for a second there I thought you wrote "a truckload"... phew, what a relief.

[Herr Barnack]

44 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Oh, for a second there I thought you wrote "a truckload"... phew, what a relief.

A fuckload is the larger unit of measure.  To clarify, 1 fuckload equals 4 truckloads. 

One truckload is sometimes referred to as a quarter fuckload.

And then we have metric fuckloads, just like we have metric tons.

 

Edited April 29, 2024 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[algrove]

On 4/26/2024 at 5:35 PM, lct said:

Not in my experience. Curiously enough i prefer (for now) the Sigma look with M lenses. It is subjective of course and i don't know how long it will take but with the same kind of 61mp FF sensor i tend to use my recently acquired Sigma FPL more so than my otherwise favorite Leica M11. Don't tell this M11 bashers there are 2 or 3 of them on this forum 😄

 

Is that Sigma the camera without EVF?

[lct]

3 minutes ago, algrove said:

Is that Sigma the camera without EVF?

It can have one, i find it handy but the kit looks rather ugly admittedly (link). Beware that the FPL has an electronic only shutter too.