The Leica Q3 28/43 and 'Leica look', 'wow' and 'magic'

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These are comments prompted by a post in the Q3 43 image thread, but I didn't want to derail that one. The writer saw no 'wow', 'magic' or 'Leica look' in the Q3 43 images there, compared to, say, the Q2 or Q3 28. From my perspective, similar comments have been written about any new Leica lens as it has launched in the past decade. I am not a great believer in such terms, but clearly others are - and I have no problem with that - whatever helps them evaluate cameras and lenses and take better photos.

I think those who look for 'magic', 'wow' and 'Leica look' have something very particular in mind they have seen in a few other favourite lenses. Since all lenses differ in one way or another, it is not surprising they don't see it in a new kid on the block. Give it a few years and the Q3 43 will be the new magic, wow and Leica look. Each person tends to use the terms differently - I suspect it would be difficult to get agreement on exactly which lenses they apply to. Pragmatic person that I am, I don't see anything I describe in those terms in any lens, but rather in the content of the photos taken with them. 

As to this lens in the Q3 43, I clearly see its apo characteristics in the crisp, rich colours, combining with a high res sensor to give a sense of real textured surfaces and materials; I also value its sharpness across the image. It certainly has none of that flavour of Leica look that comes from 'glow' (i.e. flare, or highlight dispersion caused by glass imperfections). I haven't used it enough yet to sense its out of focus character: does it recede, or does it still try to grab your attention by bokeh-ball highlights, or nervous edges? 

Some cameras by their format and functionality influence the type of photo that can be taken with them, and this can be interpreted as, say, a Leica look - the Barnack and M were particularly suited to street photography and travel compared to competitors (Speed Graphics, TLRs etc), so the images (often with focus, and camera/subject movement imperfections) came to be described as having a Leica look. An iPhone look can easily be spotted on social media: selfies, portrait mode, wide angle close-ups, highly sharpened etc. The high quality images that can be obtained from a small, quiet point-and-shoot Q, without the constraints typically imposed by the M (e.g. central placement of the subject for focusing reasons) have potential to create their own Leica look.

[JNK100]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

These are comments prompted by a post in the Q3 43 image thread, but I didn't want to derail that one. The writer saw no 'wow', 'magic' or 'Leica look' in the Q3 43 images there, compared to, say, the Q2 or Q3 28. From my perspective, similar comments have been written about any new Leica lens as it has launched in the past decade. I am not a great believer in such terms, but clearly others are - and I have no problem with that - whatever helps them evaluate cameras and lenses and take better photos.

I think those who look for 'magic', 'wow' and 'Leica look' have something very particular in mind they have seen in a few other favourite lenses. Since all lenses differ in one way or another, it is not surprising they don't see it in a new kid on the block. Give it a few years and the Q3 43 will be the new magic, wow and Leica look. Each person tends to use the terms differently - I suspect it would be difficult to get agreement on exactly which lenses they apply to. Pragmatic person that I am, I don't see anything I describe in those terms in any lens, but rather in the content of the photos taken with them. 

As to this lens in the Q3 43, I clearly see its apo characteristics in the crisp, rich colours, combining with a high res sensor to give a sense of real textured surfaces and materials; I also value its sharpness across the image. It certainly has none of that flavour of Leica look that comes from 'glow' (i.e. flare, or highlight dispersion caused by glass imperfections). I haven't used it enough yet to sense its out of focus character: does it recede, or does it still try to grab your attention by bokeh-ball highlights, or nervous edges? 

Some cameras by their format and functionality influence the type of photo that can be taken with them, and this can be interpreted as, say, a Leica look - the Barnack and M were particularly suited to street photography and travel compared to competitors (Speed Graphics, TLRs etc), so the images (often with focus, and camera/subject movement imperfections) came to be described as having a Leica look. An iPhone look can easily be spotted on social media: selfies, portrait mode, wide angle close-ups, highly sharpened etc. The high quality images that can be obtained from a small, quiet point-and-shoot Q, without the constraints typically imposed by the M (e.g. central placement of the subject for focusing reasons) have potential to create their own Leica look.

Great post.

Everything about ' a look' is subjective in my view.

[stephenmick]

Everyone has their reasons for choosing whatever lens and focal length makes them happy. But I have a hard time imagining Alex Webb, Harry Gruyaert or any great photographer of the past 60 years spending even a micro-second thinking about whether this lens or that brings "magic" or "wow" to the image. I have to think they saw that as their job as the creator of the image. 

 

[costa43]

 

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The writer saw no 'wow', 'magic' or 'Leica look' in the Q3 43 images there, compared to, say, the Q2 or Q3 28.

My guess is that a wide angle with a shallow depth of field look is visually appealing to a lot of people and it tricks them into thinking it is some kind of a 'Leica Look'. I find that people tend to be impressed with the technical elements of a photograph nowadays, even if it is not the best pic.

In my opinion, there is no specific Leica look, I just enjoy the way some of their older lenses render images but I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a blind test between a 35m summicron f2 and a Canon 35mm f2 LTM, It would be even harder for me with more modern lenses. 

The APO 43 is an amazing optic from what I have seen but at 43mm and f2 it has less of a cheat code built into it for photographers. The image itself needs to be stronger for it to stand out.

Edited December 16, 2024 by costa43

[aficionados]

7 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

These are comments prompted by a post in the Q3 43 image thread, but I didn't want to derail that one. The writer saw no 'wow', 'magic' or 'Leica look' in the Q3 43 images there, compared to, say, the Q2 or Q3 28. From my perspective, similar comments have been written about any new Leica lens as it has launched in the past decade. I am not a great believer in such terms, but clearly others are - and I have no problem with that - whatever helps them evaluate cameras and lenses and take better photos.

I think those who look for 'magic', 'wow' and 'Leica look' have something very particular in mind they have seen in a few other favourite lenses. Since all lenses differ in one way or another, it is not surprising they don't see it in a new kid on the block. Give it a few years and the Q3 43 will be the new magic, wow and Leica look. Each person tends to use the terms differently - I suspect it would be difficult to get agreement on exactly which lenses they apply to. Pragmatic person that I am, I don't see anything I describe in those terms in any lens, but rather in the content of the photos taken with them. 

As to this lens in the Q3 43, I clearly see its apo characteristics in the crisp, rich colours, combining with a high res sensor to give a sense of real textured surfaces and materials; I also value its sharpness across the image. It certainly has none of that flavour of Leica look that comes from 'glow' (i.e. flare, or highlight dispersion caused by glass imperfections). I haven't used it enough yet to sense its out of focus character: does it recede, or does it still try to grab your attention by bokeh-ball highlights, or nervous edges? 

Some cameras by their format and functionality influence the type of photo that can be taken with them, and this can be interpreted as, say, a Leica look - the Barnack and M were particularly suited to street photography and travel compared to competitors (Speed Graphics, TLRs etc), so the images (often with focus, and camera/subject movement imperfections) came to be described as having a Leica look. An iPhone look can easily be spotted on social media: selfies, portrait mode, wide angle close-ups, highly sharpened etc. The high quality images that can be obtained from a small, quiet point-and-shoot Q, without the constraints typically imposed by the M (e.g. central placement of the subject for focusing reasons) have potential to create their own Leica look.

I need to copy/paste this whole thing to some sort of AI tool to give me one sentence TLDR

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, aficionados said:

I need to copy/paste this whole thing to some sort of AI tool to give me one sentence TLDR

"Ignore any statement about Leica that includes the words 'magic', 'wow', 'Leica look', or 'glow'"

I'm just an AI tool.

[aficionados]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

"Ignore any statement about Leica that includes the words 'magic', 'wow', 'Leica look', or 'glow'"

I'm just an AI tool.

I have an iPhone 15 max and with medium sized font.

On any public forums if a post requires me to scroll down even slightly I just skip the whole post.

No any posts on any public forums are worth the soreness of my thumbs

[otto.f]

8 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The high quality images that can be obtained from a small, quiet point-and-shoot Q, without the constraints typically imposed by the M (e.g. central placement of the subject for focusing reasons) have potential to create their own Leica look.

For me it’s already clear now that we have an APO-Q look and an M look. The (street) portraits from the Q43 are too flawless to be defined as a Leica M look.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

29 minutes ago, otto.f said:

For me it’s already clear now that we have an APO-Q look and an M look. The (street) portraits from the Q43 are too flawless to be defined as a Leica M look.

Is there really a "Leica M look" that is dependent on the body rather than the lens?

[otto.f]

1 minute ago, keithlaban.co.uk said:

Is there really a "Leica M look" that is dependent on the body rather than the lens?

No but Leica M lens look doesn’t communicate. The Leica M look traditionally refers to the decisive moment being more important than the sharpness of pores on the cheek.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

36 minutes ago, otto.f said:

No but Leica M lens look doesn’t communicate. The Leica M look traditionally refers to the decisive moment being more important than the sharpness of pores on the cheek.

I used Leica M bodies and lenses for many years but despite that I've never considered capturing the "decisive moment" was dependent on any equipment regardless of manufacturer. 

[bobtodrick]

5 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

"Ignore any statement about Leica that includes the words 'magic', 'wow', 'Leica look', or 'glow'"

I'm just an AI tool.

Totally agree.

Twenty five years ago no one had ever heard of ‘bokeh’.

Now if a lens doesn’t have great ‘bokeh’ it’s crap…all these terms are laughable IMO.

A truly good photo doesn’t depend on bokeh, magic or glow, terms I’ve never seen in the writings of Bresson, Weston, Stieglitz, Frank etc.

[kkochheiser]

I was thinking just a film of Vasoline on the front element should provide all the glow needed.

[Aram Langhans]

Leica look i am sure means different things to different people.   But there is something to it.  In the 70's there was a guy in my camera club who owned a Leica M.  Not sure which one.  We would show slides each month for a competition, so they were randomly mixed and only the projectionist knew who's were who's.  But I could always pick out his slides, as could others.  Not because he showed anything different than the rest of us, but, for lack of a better term, they would glow on the screen. We almost all shot Kodachrome back then, so it was not the film. I was shooting Rollei/zeiss back then, as were two others in the club, and our shots had a certain character, too, but not the same.  

So, while I cannot define the Leica Look of my Q3 or my R8, I can see it.  Even in this digital area I could always pick out which of my Nikon shots were taken with my Nikon glass or my Leica R glass.  Especially if you zoomed in to look for edge defects like CA.  None on the Leica glass vs the Nikon glass.  And now with my Q3 and before that the Q2, the images jump out compared to my Nikon Z7ii and the new Z lenses, which are much better than my older Nikon F glass.

[otto.f]

3 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

Leica look i am sure means different things to different people.   But there is something to it.  In the 70's there was a guy in my camera club who owned a Leica M.  Not sure which one.  We would show slides each month for a competition, so they were randomly mixed and only the projectionist knew who's were who's.  But I could always pick out his slides, as could others.  Not because he showed anything different than the rest of us, but, for lack of a better term, they would glow on the screen. We almost all shot Kodachrome back then, so it was not the film. I was shooting Rollei/zeiss back then, as were two others in the club, and our shots had a certain character, too, but not the same.  

So, while I cannot define the Leica Look of my Q3 or my R8, I can see it.  Even in this digital area I could always pick out which of my Nikon shots were taken with my Nikon glass or my Leica R glass.  Especially if you zoomed in to look for edge defects like CA.  None on the Leica glass vs the Nikon glass.  And now with my Q3 and before that the Q2, the images jump out compared to my Nikon Z7ii and the new Z lenses, which are much better than my older Nikon F glass.

True, same experience here for the slide shows from  ‘70 to  ‘00. I don’t know about recent Nikon glass but I do think that the last 20 years the differences have become smaller. Especially when you look at Voigtländer. The 28 and 35 Ultron ii’s compete very well with Summicrons.

[student]

20 hours ago, kkochheiser said:

I was thinking just a film of Vasoline on the front element should provide all the glow needed.

Careful there ... some innocent soul might just follow your advice. ...

[ianforber]

I’m just glad I can’t discern the difference between lenses unless they have particularly odd out of focus shapes. It’s all the same to me. When I had my M11 I couldn’t tell you whether it was my 50mm Summicron, CV 35mm f1.5 Nokton or my Q2 lens that had been used. Bliss. 

[Taloan]

The only "leica look" you can rely on is a wrong white balance or magentaish images

SCNR  😉

Okay, so i would agree, that the wide angle of Q3 28 with open aperture and close distance focus seems a litte bit "magical", because it is a combination of image effects you don't see so often. But i also can reproduce that with my A7Cii and the 24/1,4GM or 35/1,4GM.

The other might be the M with its manual focus that is sometimes a little bit "out of focus" which let the images seem to be "imperfect", but it is a nice imperfection.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Taloan