Switching from M10 to SL2-S? But what about Leica-look?

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/14/2021 at 2:08 PM, SiOnara said:

Got to be the look of a Leica lens no?  Should be the Leica lens look.  The sensor, just like film (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) is just a canvas that the lens draws onto. 

I agree, but up to a point, or we'd be just shooting Panasonic cameras. Same L mount lenses, bodies at half the price, right?

Edited March 16, 2021 by Simone_DF

[frame-it]

8 minutes ago, Steven said:

Isn't there something else, it the way they physically treat the sensor ? AA filters, stacks, etc.... Not too technical.

you mean to say there was NO "Leica look" before the digital age??? 🤣

[hansvons]

The Leica-look is a myth. Full stop. But myths can carry truths and are not necessarily doomed to be busted. One truth is, Leica lenses are among the best in the world when it comes to sharpness, speed, etc... A further truth is a feature in their lenses that can be described as dimensionality (term in cinematography) or pop (still photography). This cannot be measured but be seen; in comparison, actually pretty easy. Plus, lenses render faces and people differently. Leica lenses tend to render faces more slender or lean. In contrast, other manufacturers tend to render faces flatter; they look wider, almost better "nourished ". 

These difference can be pretty pronounced. In cinematography, for instance, Cooke lenses are famous for their dimensionality. At the same time, Zeiss typically render the pictures flatter and distinctively cooler. In their heyday, especially in the 80ies and 90ies, the difference was so pronounced that the community was religiously divided into Cooke shooters and Zeiss shooters.

Today, dimensionality is still a feature that many cinematographers and photographers prefer over technical features like corner-to-corner sharpness (which is essential to landscape photographers) or speed. With its lenses, Leica tries to accomplish both and does exceptionally well in many cases. But this feature isn't relevant to all photographers.
Suppose you're shooting landscapes. Here, the `pop` has rarely a subject to shine (perhaps a rock or tree trunk), and dimensionality is is only depending on the field of view. In that case, you may be stuck with sharpness as the only feature of the Leica lenses left. Others, especially when stopped down, can deliver plenty of sharpness too. Thus, Leica has no deeper meaning for you.

Sensors were never something Leica had an edge in. On the contrary. Their cameras are fitted with OEM sensors from the far-east, albeit the best on the market. However, the algorithms and the subsequent interpretation of colours, especially skin tones, is in Leica's hands. To me, Leica does a fabulous job in this regard. With colours, my SL2-S has nothing left to be desired. 

This leads me to my point that the mythical Leica-look is most relevant when shooting people: when dimensionality and skin tone reproduction are on the table. That, traditionally, has always been the domain of street photography and journalism which was the origin of Leica anyway.

[SoarFM]

On 3/7/2021 at 7:07 PM, frame-it said:

What IS the Leica Look?

 

A superb question. 

The podcast below is a discussion with a Cinema Lens Specialist from ARRI, his name is Art Adams (not sure that isn’t his “screen name”...😏) I listened to this because they talk about what people mean when they describe lenses (or want lenses) with characteristics as “cinematic”, “large format look” or “creamy...”   He understands that people give amorphous ill defined names to concrete characteristics, the challenge is trying to understand what people are trying to describe. I was reminded of the “Leica look” and how it means different things to different people.

https://lensrentals.libsyn.com/website

[convexferret]

"Leica lenses tend to render faces more slender or lean. In contrast, other manufacturers tend to render faces flatter; they look wider, almost better "nourished""

I almost spat out my morning tea. We've gone from glow, to pop, to a slimming aid.

[SoarFM]

12 hours ago, hillavoider said:

not cheeky at all, i'm not the only one here asking what is the leica look with digital sensors is exactly, i was pretty firmly put in my place when i suggested its an old idea thats not really relevant now by someone with a sony sensor LOL.

so its software now..... i give up 

 

I often hear of the “imaging pipeline”. It starts with input and ends with output. (I know... duh??)

I just sold my Sony A6500, had it for years, first as a not too expensive camera I could carry on my bicycle, a lighter companion to a Sony A7R2 with lens compatibility, but really just had a short zoom attached to it mostly. It was a fine camera, later used to do some video, which, among those in the know,  it apparently is very capable and full featured.

It has the identical sensor to my Leica CL. I vastly prefer the CL. It could be in part because the Leica APS zooms and primes are nothing short of spectacular. It could also be in part because the Leica camera interface is also brilliant whereas the Sony A6500 made me want to poke my eyes out every time I went into its menu system, truly one of the most horrible camera interfaces on the face of the earth... And then when I would pop the SD card from the little CL into the computer to download and review images, I would constantly be amazed at how well the whole pipeline performed, even with the diminutive 18-56 “kit lens” OK, it’s not a kit lens in the disparaging way, it is sharp edge to edge, wide open, at the short end all the way to the long end, unlike it’s Sony/Zeiss counterpart 16-70 which was only OK. Two bodies with the same sensor, completely different experience and results.

Then I had a go with a pre-owned Panasonic S1R. The identical sensor as the SL2. I bought the S1R to do digital negative scanning, but of course couldn’t resist throwing some of my M lenses that sit with my M6 on to it (I had an M—>L adapter from toying with M lenses on the CL). Oh my gosh, it was beautiful, except the edges could get a little weird on the wides due to the thicker sensor covering than used on the SL2. I know why they do that (I think)and at the same am frustrated by it. Also, the interface of the S1R is also one of those cameras dripping with buttons and a menu system only a little bit better than the reviled Sonys.... Sold it and bought SL2 which now does double duty being used as digital negative scanner and a new home for my M mount lenses with an IBIS stabilized sensor.  A real all arounder. Two bodies with the same sensor, completely different experience and results. Yeah, I know, more money....

My humble opinion is that “its all software”, even in a snarky way is ignoring other parts of the pipeline. That’s without even getting into the topic of,  when is good enough really just good enough?

 

 

[dritz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, SoarFM said:

I often hear of the “imaging pipeline”. It starts with input and ends with output. (I know... duh??)

I just sold my Sony A6500, had it for years, first as a not too expensive camera I could carry on my bicycle, a lighter companion to a Sony A7R2 with lens compatibility, but really just had a short zoom attached to it mostly. It was a fine camera, later used to do some video, which, among those in the know,  it apparently is very capable and full featured.

It has the identical sensor to my Leica CL. I vastly prefer the CL. It could be in part because the Leica APS zooms and primes are nothing short of spectacular. It could also be in part because the Leica camera interface is also brilliant whereas the Sony A6500 made me want to poke my eyes out every time I went into its menu system, truly one of the most horrible camera interfaces on the face of the earth... And then when I would pop the SD card from the little CL into the computer to download and review images, I would constantly be amazed at how well the whole pipeline performed, even with the diminutive 18-56 “kit lens” OK, it’s not a kit lens in the disparaging way, it is sharp edge to edge, wide open, at the short end all the way to the long end, unlike it’s Sony/Zeiss counterpart 16-70 which was only OK. Two bodies with the same sensor, completely different experience and results.

Then I had a go with a pre-owned Panasonic S1R. The identical sensor as the SL2. I bought the S1R to do digital negative scanning, but of course couldn’t resist throwing some of my M lenses that sit with my M6 on to it (I had an M—>L adapter from toying with M lenses on the CL). Oh my gosh, it was beautiful, except the edges could get a little weird on the wides due to the thicker sensor covering than used on the SL2. I know why they do that (I think)and at the same am frustrated by it. Also, the interface of the S1R is also one of those cameras dripping with buttons and a menu system only a little bit better than the reviled Sonys.... Sold it and bought SL2 which now does double duty being used as digital negative scanner and a new home for my M mount lenses with an IBIS stabilized sensor.  A real all arounder. Two bodies with the same sensor, completely different experience and results. Yeah, I know, more money....

My humble opinion is that “its all software”, even in a snarky way is ignoring other parts of the pipeline. That’s without even getting into the topic of,  when is good enough really just good enough?

 

 

Please start a thread on using your SL as a negative scanner.... especially the equipment setup.  I've found it tremendously slow going, frustrating... so be sage for the rest of us!

[SiOnara]

On 3/16/2021 at 7:19 AM, Simone_DF said:

I agree, but up to a point, or we'd be just shooting Panasonic cameras. Same L mount lenses, bodies at half the price, right?

I guess there is something in that yes, but then how does that work with a film Leica? Does that have the Leica look when it’s shot on Kodak or Ilford or Fuji film etc. Still think the vast majority of the look comes from the lens. 

[kmak817]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:07 PM, frame-it said:

What IS the Leica Look?

 

To paraphrase, it is like pornography.  Tough to define, but you know it when you see it.