The Iconic Leica Look

[Herman Zhang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How would you define the Leica Look?

[Advertisement]

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

[Viv]

The Leica Look is a myth.

[wizard]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb Viv:

The Leica Look is a myth.

And that's what makes it so special 🙂.

[a.noctilux]

myth ?

[jgeenen]

That's easy.

1. Leica M Cameras are rangefinders that have only one focus patch in the center and the frame lines are only accurate at 2m distance. Therefore the main subject is always in the middle and the surrounding is somewhat erratic. Leicanians call it "Capture the moment"
2. The rangefinder does not give an overview on depth of field. Leicanians therefore play with bubbly unsharpness. They call it "Bokeh", a term that has probably been invented by Leicanians and spread across the camera industry.  "Bubbly Bokeh" is the superlative of Bokeh and typical for the Leica Look.
3. Leica M lenses are compact. To achieve the most compact design with good image quality, they had to make compromises elsewhere. That's why Leica lenses always show vignetting. Many older Leica lenses had been state of the art at their time but no longer nowadays. Leicanians call this "character".
4. Leica cameras are usually enhanced by accessories - leather straps, thumb grips, brass hoods, and custom leatherette (typically more expensive than other brands' entry level cameras). Leicanians call this "Leica Porn". Obviously that has nothing to do with "A Leica Look!!" but with "Look! A Leica!"

 

[jankap]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb jgeenen:

Leica M lenses are compact. To achieve the most compact design with good image quality, they had to make compromises elsewhere. 

 

Leica M lenses have to be compact. Otherwise, they would shade the finder or even the rangefinder field in the finder. A forced design constraint.

Edited December 19, 2023 by jankap

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Herman Zhang said:

How would you define the Leica Look?

This question comes up quite regularly and there's always answers like 'the Leica colours' (what about B&W?), the sensor (what about film?) the APO lenses (what about all the others?) etc.

When Leica started selling their little cameras most photographers were using large format or medium format gear which is generally slower to use and requires a more methodical approach. The Leica made it easier to take quick shots, candids etc., 'street' and reportage were perfect for it. The wonderful Elmar lens helped make the most out of the small negs.

The Leica look IMHO is that more candid style of photography.

[Olaf_ZG]

15 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

The Leica look is the look your wife gives you when she sees your bank statement.

Before or after purchase?

[markc2]

To me the Leica look, is when the picture starts to turn into a painting. I've heard the term painting, or drawing with light, and the Leica when doing this is amazing.

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by markc2

[a.noctilux]

1 hour ago, markc2 said:

To me the Leica look, is when the picture starts to turn into a painting. I've heard the term painting, or drawing with light, and the Leica when doing this is amazing.

 

Now I understand why HCB paint fulltime, after decades of photography (with Leica ! ).

[pippy]

1 hour ago, markc2 said:

To me the Leica look, is when the picture starts to turn into a painting. I've heard the term painting, or drawing with light, and the Leica when doing this is amazing.

Unlike, say, a Contax II fitted with a 50mm f2.0 Sonnar? Or else a Canon 7 with a 50mm f0.95 'Dream' lens? Or....etc...etc...

Seriously? The whole 'Leica Look' thing is complete nonsense.

Philip.

[markc2]

21 minutes ago, pippy said:

Unlike, say, a Contax II fitted with a 50mm f2.0 Sonnar? Or else a Canon 7 with a 50mm f0.95 'Dream' lens? Or....etc...etc...

Seriously? The whole 'Leica Look' thing is complete nonsense.

Philip.

I have a Hasselblad 501CM that does amazing things and I haven't it seen it do something quite like this. The branch that is in the front that's bending towards the ground all around that area it feels drawn and painted to me, this is not my photo by the way, haven't played with other cameras outside of Leica and Hasselblad, so I can't speak to their "magic".  The colors and renditions around that area are beautiful to me.  If you look at the left side of the painting with what the artist did with his renditions of the trees in the light the Leica looks amazingly close to that. Not the whole painting but the trees to me are close. Maybe magical isn't the right word, but for me beautiful works.
 

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 20, 2023 by markc2
didn't need a couple of words.

[Indeepthought]

Well of course there is a Leica Look’ just like driving a Porsche, there is something special, some can some can’t appreciate the moment! Not every Porsche journey is memorable and not every Leica image taken is magical. 🍷

[david strachan]

It's a great marketing saying... 

[pippy]

10 hours ago, markc2 said:

...The branch that is in the front that's bending towards the ground all around that area it feels drawn and painted to me......The colors and renditions around that area are beautiful...

I fully agree.

The quality of light in the photograph is painterly and - ignoring the selective image manipulation in post-prod (as it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion) - the photographer has captured the mood of the scene very well but that is not down to the equipment being used.

From the photographic side of things whether the photographer used a Leica or a Large-format camera is unimportant; they would have been capable of capturing the scene in a similar manner regardless of the 'kit' chosen. Neither the camera nor the lens selected could create the dappled-light effect on the forest-floor nor highlight the shimmering look of the Autumnal leaves; that is all down to the Quality of Light in that location and at that moment of time.

Philip.

[Viv]

2 minutes ago, pippy said:

I fully agree.

The quality of light in the photograph is painterly and - ignoring the selective image manipulation in post-prod (as it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion) - the photographer has captured the mood of the scene very well but that is not down to the equipment being used.

From the photographic side of things whether the photographer used a Leica or a Large-format camera is unimportant; they would have been capable of capturing the scene in a similar manner regardless of the 'kit' chosen. Neither the camera nor the lens selected could create the dappled-light effect on the forest-floor nor highlight the shimmering look of the Autumnal leaves; that is all down to the Quality of Light in that location and at that moment of time.

Philip.

Quite right. No Leica snake oil involved.

[pgk]

20 hours ago, Herman Zhang said:

How would you define the Leica Look?

How? Preferably after several glasses of wine.

What would I define it as is something else entirely, and Pippy has beaten me to it anyway.

FWIW its worth having a look here: https://cookeoptics.com/cooke-look/. The 'Cooke Look' is carefully analysed and it is evidently possible to produce a set of lenses with the same characteristics. It also has a market in that for movies a coherent look can be important and therefore has a value. However it should be very evident that Leica has not built lenses on this basis - ever - and that Leica has used a variety of designers, design requirements and even lenses designed and built by other makers. Potentially the nearest Leica has come to producing a coherent series of similar lenses may be the recent Summarit range or perhaps the current aspheric or apo lenses which have absolute precision as their goal. But otherwise there has been huge variation in Leica lens design and there quite simply is no coherent look. That said, certain, specific lenses do have aberrations which produce a specific look but this is on an individual lens's basis and no more.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by pgk

[pippy]

This could all get very distracting - not to say tedious and boring - but to play 'Devil's Advocate' for a moment...

It could be argued that for a while back in the 1930's / '40s there was a different philosophy being followed by two of the main lens manufacturers in Germany with respect their optical-design aims. The following is a vast generalisation but Carl Zeiss' designers tended to aim for lenses which were very sharp centrally with more contrast than Leitz. The latter usually preferred to go for greater control over aberrations but this approach tended to result in lenses which offered lower-contrast than their Zeiss equivalents.

If we were to look at photographs taken of the same subject from a Contax / 50mm f2.0 Sonnar ('Sonnar' design; introduced 1931) pairing as opposed to a Leica / Summitar (modified 'Double-Gauss' design introduced 1933) we would see that this does appear to be the case and some folks might say - with a certain amount of justification - each of these manufacturers' lenses produced images which had their own distinctive 'look'.

The problem with this argument is that Zeiss lens optical engineer Paul Rudolph had, for his employer, designed the Zeiss Planar which, like the Summitar, used a Double-Gauss design way back in 1896 and Leitz' most famous early lens by a long way, the 50mm f3.5 Elmar, used a 'Tessar' optical design which was also designed by Herr Rudolph for Carl Zeiss...

Philip.

Edited December 20, 2023 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[markc2]

PGK that Cooke information was awesome. Thank you for that! 

Might as well do a 2001 intro with, brushes and paint and drawing sticks being smashed and one being thrown into the air and then changing into a modern day camera, because that's how long we've been trying to capture light, color and shadow!

[pippy]

22 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Leica had a Cooke lens rebranded as their own, the Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Summarit 50/1.5 in M39 and M mounts. No sign of either Cooke or Leica look with that lens.

Yes, Al, but to be fair the 50mm f1.5 Summarit was really just a mildly-tweaked Xenon (TTH design from 1930 originally licensed to Zeiss and subsequently licensed to Leitz) and, being a 7 element / 5 group optical design has practically nothing in common with the famous 'Cooke Triplet' apart from TTH having being given the licensing rights to market Cooke's lenses.

It does show the 'Leica Look' off quite well, though......😸......just for a giggle here's the very first pic I took with my own 1953 Summarit (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!

Philip.