advertisement


The Leica look

Not looking to be in anyway rude to you Joe, but to anyone wanting to see differences in the test that Joe put up, you really have to go to the source site where all the files are considerably sharper, well in terms of comparisons of high end lenses they are, I can’t see much of any difference on what appears here.
To that end I’m really curious as to why that should be when you’ve simply posted the url, they should be identical and yet they’re not. My guess is there’s something coding wise on his site that allows more detailing on the images to come through. I’ve come across other sites where images have a sharpness onscreen that I’ve never been able to achieve. I was viewing on a MacBook Pro retina screen with my reading glasses on btw.
 
Bobby,

I did provide the link to the guy's site, so people can go to the source if they wish, where the photos are clearly identified. (I don't know why the images are less sharp when posted here. All I did was grab the URLs of the pix and embed them here to make the comparison easier. But that doesn't cause degradation, as it's exactly the same file.)

In any case, I don't consider it a definitive test, just a bit of photo fodder for discussion here. Like a lot of people who have been into photography for a while I'm curious about Leica relative to, in my case, Nikon.

Joe
 
I used to work with a Nikon photographer who on my recommendation bought a Leica to supplement his Slr, the only lens he had that I couldn’t identify from the Leica photos (that’s looking at 4 or 5 prints from each roll) was from his 50mm I can’t remember if it was 1.2 or 1.4, but that had a similar rendering. Again that was also prints from film, not digital.
 
Canon 50L — Shot at f/1.2, Leica 50Lux — Shot at f/1.4, Nikon 58G — Shot at f/1.4

Joe

That switch from 50 to 58 mm is just enough to kind of spoil the test.

To my eye the Canon renders bokeh in a different plane than the surroundings, which may look "sharp" but is less pleasing than either the Leica or Nikon.
 
All the images looked soft to me and if the first one is a Leica 50 Lux (which is my main lens), it doesn't vignette that much. The second one with the Canon is apparently their sharpest fast lens and it looks out of focus.
 
All the images looked soft to me and if the first one is a Leica 50 Lux (which is my main lens), it doesn't vignette that much. The second one with the Canon is apparently their sharpest fast lens and it looks out of focus.

Yes, the 50/1.2 is compromised to give you the extra bit of speed. It's like the noctilux which isn't as sharp as a summilux, the benefit being that extra stop when you need it. I'd personally look at the longer canon fast lenses as being their best, the 85/1.2 and 135/2 being just generally excellent. It's a bit like hasselblad where the 100/3.5 is a better lens than the 80/2.8 but rarer. However, we're almost always talking about special situations where you can tell them apart. I'm always aware that my shoddy camera technique is the greatest limitation rather than the equipment I own.
 
Here's a hasselbad 80/2.8 wide open - the link has a larger scan. You can count eyelashes. I know it's sharp enough to print largish. Shows the bokeh, although there's little in the middle distance which normally shows the quality better

HB.20121028.081 by Cesare Ferrari, on Flickr
 
Yes, the 50/1.2 is compromised to give you the extra bit of speed. It's like the noctilux which isn't as sharp as a summilux, the benefit being that extra stop when you need it. I'd personally look at the longer canon fast lenses as being their best, the 85/1.2 and 135/2 being just generally excellent.

I wouldn't disagree with any of this, I have the Canon 1.2 but I never really open it much beyond 2.2 as it's too soft, however I do think the Leica is usable at 1.4, that's one of it's advantages. I have the old non asph version, but I tend never to use it at 1.4, again about 2.2 it's usable, but it's one of my all time favourites and partly why I'll be reluctant to give up the system. I don't know that shoddy technique comes in to it really, when you're working at those low levels of light, with the depth of field available and slow shutter speeds, any advantage is worthwhile, in those situations the Canon struggles to focus at all, and I've found the Leica at 2.2 and the electronic viewfinder so much more successful, I'm not sure what technique would change that, but my requirements are probably quite extreme, I shoot weddings and try where possible to avoid flash so low light capability is very important to me.
 
Here's a hasselbad 80/2.8

i own this and never use it -- it's there in the camera closet just in case a top fashion model ever decides to do a shoot with me. i took it outside once and probably never again.
 
Here's a hasselbad 80/2.8 wide open - the link has a larger scan. You can count eyelashes. I know it's sharp enough to print largish. Shows the bokeh, although there's little in the middle distance which normally shows the quality better

HB.20121028.081 by Cesare Ferrari, on Flickr

Sorry but there is nothing special about that. I tried counting eyelashes and failed. I suppose that it is a scan which will ruin the look anyway so maybe it looks very nice as a print.
 
If you've a few hours to spare, count the hairs on this, Leica M Monochrom (first version, 18mp sensor) and basic 50/f2, shot at ISO 800 1/60th f8. The second is cropped from the first.

Bear in mind the sensor does not use RGB, so is effectively over 50mp without fringing)



 
I always thought that the Leica look was exactly because you couldn't count hairs...if you want to do that, you buy Zeiss T* lenses.
For me, the Leica images are always beautiful tonally, with fractionally lower contrast but broader tonal range. They always work best in B&W for that reason I think.
 
Leica have released a new (cabinet queen) limited edition model called the Leica M10 "Edition Zagato" . Limited to 250 pieces and costs £18,000

 
My first foray into Leica use (after many years of fantasizing) was about 15 years ago, when a friend who was seriously into his hifi, decided he needed a decent camera for travelling, and as he could afford it, he bought a Leica (film) camera. He wasn't very pleased with the results, and as he'd liked my photos, decided that he needed the same camera as I had. I tried to convince him that it wasn't the camera, and we went out with my camera (Contax RX, Zeiss T* 50mm f1.4) and his Leica M(6 or 7), with 50mm f1.4 of that era. We put a roll of Provia 100 in each, and swapped cameras, my intention was to prove that the camera and lens were not really the deciding factor in how good a picture you got. I got some fairly decent shots but didn't really feel comfortable with the Leica. My friend contacted me a month or so later to say he'd bought a Contax RX and a couple of lenses, but still wasn't getting the results he wanted... at that point I started banging my head on the wall. More recently I had a day with a M9(or maybe 10) digital, but to be honest, I prefer using my Fuji X-E2 and get as good, or better results - possibly because I'm not afraid I might drop it!
However, if I won the lottery (unlikely as I don't actually do it, so my odds are slightly worse) - I would buy a Leica Monochrom, as I love the concept.
 
Leica have released a new (cabinet queen) limited edition model called the Leica M10 "Edition Zagato" . Limited to 250 pieces and costs £18,000


wow, that's perfect for unobtrusive street photography and wandering without care in the tougher neighborhoods of the world. pure design genius.
 
My first foray into Leica use (after many years of fantasizing) was about 15 years ago, when a friend who was seriously into his hifi, decided he needed a decent camera for travelling, and as he could afford it, he bought a Leica (film) camera. He wasn't very pleased with the results, and as he'd liked my photos, decided that he needed the same camera as I had. I tried to convince him that it wasn't the camera, and we went out with my camera (Contax RX, Zeiss T* 50mm f1.4) and his Leica M(6 or 7), with 50mm f1.4 of that era. We put a roll of Provia 100 in each, and swapped cameras, my intention was to prove that the camera and lens were not really the deciding factor in how good a picture you got. I got some fairly decent shots but didn't really feel comfortable with the Leica. My friend contacted me a month or so later to say he'd bought a Contax RX and a couple of lenses, but still wasn't getting the results he wanted... at that point I started banging my head on the wall. More recently I had a day with a M9(or maybe 10) digital, but to be honest, I prefer using my Fuji X-E2 and get as good, or better results - possibly because I'm not afraid I might drop it!
However, if I won the lottery (unlikely as I don't actually do it, so my odds are slightly worse) - I would buy a Leica Monochrom, as I love the concept.

You better get a move on. I sold mine about June 2017 for £2,500, they're now asking £3,200.
 


advertisement


Back
Top