Leica Look

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Finally got the answer that the Leica Look is real.  In rangefinder systems the flange distance is considerably shorter.  This enables the lens to be designed much simpler and more efficient with more micro contrast in its application.

The lens plays the most important part in determining the Leica Look and the rangefinder M takes it to the next level…!

 

Edited July 6 by Anthony MD

[Advertisement]

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

[Anthony MD]

28 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Leica Look = Flange distance + Leica prime M lens…!

 

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 6 by Anthony MD

[erl]

So, a Leica lens on a 'foreign' body would have the 'Leica Look'?

[frame-it]

 

Sony E-mount=18.00 mm

Hasselblad XCD mount=18.14 mm

Fujifilm G-mount=26.7 mm

 

Leica M-mount=27.8 (inner rails) <-> 27.95 (outer rails) mm

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

[Anthony MD]

41 minutes ago, erl said:

So, a Leica lens on a 'foreign' body would have the 'Leica Look'?

Not quite.  The Leica Look requires a rangefinder with its shorter flange distance.

A “foreign body” that’s also a rangefinder might do it…!

[Anthony MD]

35 minutes ago, frame-it said:

 

Sony E-mount=18.00 mm

Hasselblad XCD mount=18.14 mm

Fujifilm G-mount=26.7 mm

 

Leica M-mount=27.8 (inner rails) <-> 27.95 (outer rails) mm

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

I’m talking about the flange distance on the rangefinder cameras…!

[RexGig0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there really only one monolithic “Leica Look?” Fans of Walter Mandler lenses, for example, may not agree that Peter Karbe-era lenses have the same “Leica Look.”

Moreover, Leica M-mount is not the only Leica system. Leica R was an SLR system, with a substantially greater flange distance.

[Anthony MD]

26 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

Is there really only one monolithic “Leica Look?” Fans of Walter Mandler lenses, for example, may not agree that Peter Karbe-era lenses have the same “Leica Look.”

Moreover, Leica M-mount is not the only Leica system. Leica R was an SLR system, with a substantially greater flange distance.

The shorter the flange distance for the rangefinder systems automatically has the advantage by using a simple designed lens with more micro contrast which identifies itself as the Leica Look…!

[Anthony MD]

The Leica Look is described as great detail (micro contrast) without the excessive sharpness (simple design) of the lens…!

[frame-it]

3 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

The Leica Look requires a rangefinder

probably so that the shot is also slightly out of focus

[Anthony MD]

11 minutes ago, frame-it said:

probably so that the shot is also slightly out of focus

It can still be in focus with great detail and no excessive sharpness…!

[Dazzajl]

I’ve always thought the Leica look was like this 

 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

I can see this thread is going to a descend into a pit of geometrical confusion.

Of course a Leica lens on a non-Leica body (let's say a Sony) would give the Leica Look, because the body plus lens adapter gives a corrected register distance that exactly matches the Leica lens's needs.

And of course by the same logic a Voigtlander or Zeiss M-mount lens on a Leica M body will give the Leica Look, because the register distance is Leica's.

And therefore, a Voigtlander lens on a Sony body gives us the Leica Look. At a fraction of the price.

QED

Edited July 7 by LocalHero1953

[jgeenen]

This flange argument was born and correct in the 80s. At that time, construction of a wide angle lens for an SLR camera was more complex than for a range finder camera (the so called retrofocus design). Consequently, SLR wide angle lens were more complex and generally bigger than similar M wide angle lenses (even the very compact Olympus wide angle lenses did not reach their M variants) - and in many cases inferior in image quality. But already for standard focal lengths (not to speak about telephoto lenses), this argument was no longer relevant.

Today, all modern cameras (mirrorless digital designs) use very short flange distances. Lenses however are often still bigger than the M variants. Why? Mainly two reasons contribute to this:

(a) The design of fast autofocus lenses require internal focusing mechanisms that require more complex lens setups.

(b) To avoid image quality issues to the edge of a frame caused by angled light rays, lens designers still prefer retro focus designs. Leica M compensates this with a more complex sensor design (for that reason, Leica wide angle lenses often not deliver the same edge IQ on other mirrorless bodies).

On the other hand, if you carefully examine more modern wide angle lens designs for Leica M (e.g. the Summilux 21mm, the Summilux 28mm, Super-Elmar 21mm, the WATE, the MATE), you will find that those are retrofocus designs as well.

So to summarize:

The flange distance is not essential for the assumed Leica look. 

Edited July 7 by jgeenen

[Anthony MD]

Why hasn’t anyone heard of the Voigtlander, Sony or Cannon Look…?

Edited July 7 by Anthony MD

[dynaerik]

... I think I get some popcorn for this thread  

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!

[Anthony MD]

4 hours ago, jgeenen said:

This flange argument was born and correct in the 80s. At that time, construction of a wide angle lens for an SLR camera was more complex than for a range finder camera (the so called retrofocus design). Consequently, SLR wide angle lens were more complex and generally bigger than similar M wide angle lenses (even the very compact Olympus wide angle lenses did not reach their M variants) - and in many cases inferior in image quality. But already for standard focal lengths (not to speak about telephoto lenses), this argument was no longer relevant.

Today, all modern cameras (mirrorless digital designs) use very short flange distances. Lenses however are often still bigger than the M variants. Why? Mainly two reasons contribute to this:

(a) The design of fast autofocus lenses require internal focusing mechanisms that require more complex lens setups.

(b) To avoid image quality issues to the edge of a frame caused by angled light rays, lens designers still prefer retro focus designs. Leica M compensates this with a more complex sensor design (for that reason, Leica wide angle lenses often not deliver the same edge IQ on other mirrorless bodies).

On the other hand, if you carefully examine more modern wide angle lens designs for Leica M (e.g. the Summilux 21mm, the Summilux 28mm, Super-Elmar 21mm, the WATE, the MATE), you will find that those are retrofocus designs as well.

So to summarize:

The flange distance is not essential for the assumed Leica look. 

As I see it, 👀, Leica designs their lenses differently from other companies.  Also they produce rangefinder type cameras which other companies don’t.  So with this technology one can safely say Leica has a unique look…!

Edited July 7 by Anthony MD

[Dazzajl]

33 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Why hasn’t anyone heard of the Voigtlander, Sony or Cannon Look…?

I think the serious answer to that question is that while all manufacturers have their own take on colour science and do to some degree, all have a signature look (perhaps better described as a starting point) they market against each other mostly in spec at price point basis. 
 

Leica don’t go down that road as if we all bought purely on the idea of performance amount per £, like most premium brands, Leica wouldn’t have any sales. The idea that Leica has more of a singular, defined or quantifiable look than anyone else is a marketing creation. 
 

To me, the absolutely quantifiable reasons to shoot Leica in 2025 are the superior build quality and the user experience that comes from that and the most elegant design. 
 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Anthony MD]

1 minute ago, Dazzajl said:

I think the serious answer to that question is that while all manufacturers have their own take on colour science and do to some degree, all have a signature look (perhaps better described as a starting point) they market against each other mostly in spec at price point basis. 
 

Leica don’t go down that road as if we all bought purely on the idea of performance amount per £, like most premium brands, Leica wouldn’t have any sales. The idea that Leica has more of a singular, defined or quantifiable look than anyone else is a marketing creation. 
 

To me, the absolutely quantifiable reasons to shoot Leica in 2025 are the superior build quality and the user experience that comes from that and the most elegant design. 
 

 

And lens design…!

[Dazzajl]

1 minute ago, Anthony MD said:

And lens design…!

50 years ago, absolutely. Today a machine in China, or anywhere, can create a more perfect piece of glass than the best technician in Germany, or elsewhere. Designs are aided by pretty much the same software in all companies, so if you put the same effort, experience and raw materials in, you’ll get the same quality out, regardless of who and where. 
 

The only real look is the one you create. Like all photo/optical companies, Leica exist to help inspire and enable you to tap into your own creativity. My 2ps worth anyway.