The Leica look

[drummerman]

I have been fascinated for a while by Leica.

Its not one thing but a combination of history, the Name (and what it stands for, though that is somewhat subjective depending at which side of the fence you stand) and the quality of the products. - Then there is the inherent simplicity of operation of many/most of the company's cameras. - Something I wished others would emulate rather than taking the 'more is better' route.

The cameras hold their value remarkably, the lenses equally, in some cases exceeding their new value after years. Quality, generally seems beyond criticism even if ultimate value for money is very questionable and diminishing returns surely heavily come into it. Still, having that red dot on the front (or at least the packaging) makes up for it in the same way as a Sea or Speedmaster does in comparison to a Seiko even if rationale has little to do with it.

Then there is the 'look' of images. I can't put my finger on it and I certainly could not always tell if a picture was taken by a Leica product but there is something about them. - Fuji have a similar approach but their output differs from the non-Bayer sensors. Rendering is different. Colors too are not the ultimate quest for reality favored by many other manufacturers but Fuji has its own way, not universally perfect but they stick to their guns, at least with their higher end products and that is laudable.

Whilst color can be adjusted to anything in post processing I just like the way Leica's generally produce output, even in B&W. It can be sharp, very but is not always so obvious as to distract.

In some of my pictures I have attempted to re-create some of the 'glow' that certain Leica lenses render but I am way off with the colors. Mostly because I favor B&W, partly because I am still trying to come to grips with the new camera.

All this is an ill-fated-attempt at trying to re-create something on the cheap. - A knock-off. I am fully aware of it and know that unless I get that Leica and glass, I will never even get close.

As is, I am happy to learn the craft on my 3 wheeler equivalent camera for a while. Next will be the purchase of a 25mm 1.4 Panasonic lens which happens to have the Leica name stamped on it. - It's Leica DNA percentage can probably be measured in a single digit figure (likely the formula of the coating) but its an affordable step in a direction I would ultimately like to take. - Looking at prices, it will take some time!

Meanwhile, I just like to watch contributions such as from T.V.Overgaard and read articles such as the following;

http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

I can only dream on.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

An interesting subject, its all down to the glass.

The 'pop' as so often described, is generally down to improved micro contrast. Two things help here, simple well made lens designs (fewer elements) and the bigger the sensor, the better, as the larger the sensor the simpler the optics design can be.

On the whole modern lens manufacturers have chased sharpness, lack of optical distortion, chromatic aberration, etc in lens design, this has led to complex lens designs, often with many lens elements (and in Sigma's case some very weighty lenses - just look at the size of the ART lenses), and whilst these lenses can produce razor sharp images, they lack the 'pop' that you are looking for. Smaller sensors make this even harder as do zoom lenses.

Leica (and Zeiss) on the whole have kept their lenses designs relatively simple (few elements), and have spent years and years developing lens coatings. To this effect often their lenses have a 'special' rendering. There are some lenses in other manufacturers ranges that also have this effect (often considered their halo lenses), but Leica have been very consistent over the years.

Increasing sensor size, makes lens design simpler (its easy to optically correct distortion for instance on a bigger sensor), and this is why medium format images are often attributed with a certain amount of 'pop'.

Chasing the Leica look while admirable (if that's what you want) will be made extra hard with an M43 sensor (its a quarter of the size of a FF sensor). But if you want the Leica look then you will have to give in and buy a Leica camera (or at the very least use a bigger sensor and Leica or Zeiss traditional optics!)

 

[drummerman]

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[mikechadwick]

I’ve been a big fan of Leica for a while now. Totally understand why you’d look for that Leica “magic” but like Mr P says you’re going to struggle with a M4/3 camera and lens combo even if the lens has the Leica name. There’s loads of relatively cheap Leica glass around for the M system - pick up an M8 or M9 you’re on the road to Leica paradise.

 

[Cesare]

I'm with you to a certain extent about the equipment, but not about the image quality - I can't tell Leica images from non-Leica. In fact, i can't tell any camera maker apart. I can't say the images on that link inspire me, I can't imagine wanting to have taken any of them

Actually, thinking about it, the problem with most 35mm cameras is that they are aimed at the consumer market, so the quality of the equipment is to a certain extent compromised by price from the start. If you try medium format cameras you'll find that they all have a certain magic operationally (the simplicity you speak of), and so this might be a good avenue for you to explore. You could pick up a fuji 6*9 rangefinder, which is like a massive leica for 300-400 on ebay, and discover how compromised the 35mm format really is.

 

[chebby]

Search for anything you can by photographer James Ravilious ...

 

[drummerman]

I think going film would take it a step further than I want to.

 

[vuk]

You could pick up a fuji 6*9 rangefinder, which is like a massive leica for 300-400 on ebay, and discover how compromised the 35mm format really is.

that has not been my experience.

 

[Joe P]

I used to think that the Leica look could be had only with a Leica, much the same way that the Naim sound could be had only with Naim kit, but if the criteria are tack sharpness, decent boheh and high contrast, many current lenses do that.

Without looking at the image identities, can you tell me which was shot with Canon, Nikon and Leica glass?

Obviously, three different pictures so it's hard to compare accurately, but does one stand out as obviously better or preferable?

OK, now try this — three pictures of the same subject, where one was shot with Leica glass, another with Canon glass and another still with Nikon glass.

Joe

 

[Joe P]

No cheating — please look at the images, then see how your guess squares with fact.

Spoiler: Identity of the first set of three pictures

Leica M(type240) + 50mm Summilux f/1.4 ASPH, Canon 5D MarkIV + 50mm f/1.2 L, Nikon Df + 58mm f/1.4G

Joe

 

[Joe P]

Spoiler: Identity of the next set of three pictures

Canon 50L — Shot at f/1.2, Leica 50Lux — Shot at f/1.4, Nikon 58G — Shot at f/1.4

Joe

 

[Joe P]

Here is the second set of three pix in the same order but cropped.

Joe

 

[Joe P]

P.S. This is where the pix are from: http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2017/1/3/my-top-3-lenses

Joe

 

[Paulicus]

I'll guess..middle one on the first set and bottom one on the last set are Leica glass.

 

[Joe P]

One thing I will concede: It's hard to beat the Leica form factor. A smallish camera and smallish lenses would be my choice all other things being equal.

Oh, that and the bodies and lenses look so damn cool.

Joe

 

[Whaleblue]

Top of first set and middle of second are Leica?

 

[vuk]

middle of second set looks best to me (of that set).

 

[Bobbyrab]

I'm not sure how you posted these Joe, but all the images are softer on this page than they are on the photographers site. From your posting I'd have no real idea as they all look out of focus, on his sight they are much sharper and I think the Leica is demonstrably the better lens then. That said he's shooting them all wide open, and if you stopped them down the difference would tail off.
I have mixed feelings about recommending Leica, I use Canon & Leica professionally and there are times where a combination of great lenses and my being able to get sharp shots at lower handheld speeds with the Leica can be really useful, and I do find there is a micro contrast thing with the Leica that does seem to hold more detail than the Canon, but it's a very expensive option and for most people not shooting in the low light environments I sometimes have to, probably not worth the extra cost, especially as I find some of those same advantages available with Fuji, and I'd guess Sony as well.
The Fuji X cameras have really impressed me, to the point where I am considering changing my Canon gear across to Fuji. Very good lenses optically and lightweight, plus no mirror slap, and I'm becoming a convert to electronic viewfinders especially for manual focusing. it was once explained to me, but I think this is mainly on the wider lenses, that Leica, and mirrorless systems, have less of a compromise in lens design in not having to keep space for the mirror, but I think this is less about contrast and more to do with distortion, but I'm not very technical when it comes to these things so maybe I have that wrong, whatever, Leica [and the Zeiss I've had] lenses are nearly always top notch.

 

[Stunsworth]

Search for anything you can by photographer James Ravilious ...

Ravilious was a genius and as good as any of the more well known photographers.

The thing that people often miss when discussing Leicas is how different using a rangefinder camera is to using an SLR or a camera with an EVF. It’s one of the reasons some people love the cameras and others wonder what the fuss is all about.

 

[Joe P]

Bobby,

I just grabbed the URLs of the images and posted them here for easy viewing and comment. I thought it was a good comparison and to my eyes the images aren't night and day different.

I sometimes see the Leica magic (that combination of biting sharpness with creamy bokeh) and sometimes not, but for me the cost of getting into a Leica system is prohibitive. Maybe others are seeing something subtle that I'm oblivious to.

Joe