What exactly makes the Leica look?

<p>Sounds like you certailnly offended that "Leica shooter". I think people worry way too much about the brand thinking that it makes them better photographers. It's all in their heads.</p>

<p>"it is very very apparent."<br>

If it actually is that apparent, why did he have to write it on the back?<br>

But anyway, judging from all the responses, it sounds wise to first of all establish if there is any Leica look at all. Except for the red dot off course.</p>

<p>"About the microcontrast thing, could someone explain better how it works, what causes it?"</p>

<p>Micro contrast is more commonly refered to as local contrast these days. Google "local contrast" and you will find a lot more informative articles than googling "micro contrast".</p>

<p>When people talk about Nikon or Canon, they talk about features, or possibly MP or high ISO performance. When they talk about Leica they talk about mysticism. But even when you strip away all that, you still get an exceptional camera with a classic minimalistic user interface, small size, and exceptional lenses.</p>

<p>If Leica wished to market the Leica merely by the results it could achieve, the M8 would probably be a tough polycarbonate and would be priced a bit cheaper. But they're caught between trying to please their fan base who love the old world charm of the M's and people who actually have the temerity to want to take pictures with their cameras. I don't know what I'd do if I were running Leica. I'm glad they're still around even if I can't afford to buy their cameras new. But much as I enjoy using the Leica M's, any mystical qualities are too subtle for me to see.</p>

<p>I can easily tell the difference between a Leica shot and one taken on a plebeian's camera especially on photo.net as the photographer will insist on placing text below such as "Leica M2 35mm 1:2.8 Summaron" just so we all gasp in amazement at it.</p>

<p>The answer is obvious from the image above, "PS Glow", which is spoiled because the baby is out of focus. While the Leica lens may have a very slight edge in quality, and I'm not willing to agree that it does, PS Glow would have turned out a lot better if the photographer had used an auto focus SLR.<br>

There have been numerous discussions such as this on this forum. In many cases, people say they can easily spot a Leica image while other say they can see no difference. I recall one discussion where a man posted a picture of a sign over a tavern that he took with his M7 ($5,000 or so with lens) and another taken by his wife with an Olympus Epic ($89?). He wondered what he was doing wrong since he couldn't see any difference in the images. I still have on my desktop two images of a brick chimney; one taken through a Nikon 50mm lens the other through a Zeiss. To my eyes they are almost identical. I would not say one is superior to the other.<br>

There can be visually obvious differences between lenses, however. I once compared my Nikon 45p with a Nikon 50/1.8. I put the camera on a tripod with the 45p, took a picture, then replaced the lens with the 50/1.8 and took another picture of the same scene. The camera was loaded with Astia 100. I took about a dozen of these shot pairs then scanned and enlarged the slides. The 45p was obviously superior in color and contrast. The two lenses were about the same in resolution. Both lenses are Nikon's although I have heard rumors the 45p is actually made by Cosina. The reason the 45p is superior is, I suspect, it is a simpler lens design with fewer elements and fewer surfaces to scatter light internally.</p>

<p>The fact is, that unless you try the lenses for yourself, you will not know what you like and what works for you. Sometimes a brand name can influence you when you buy a lens, but once you develop the negatives and print them, the truth has to emerge. I am not a lens fanatic, but in the 50mm FL I probably use at least a dozen different lenses, and each has particular merits. Overall, the rangefinder lenses tend to be of a very good quality, especially the modern glass, so it is difficult to find a bad lens. As to the glow, it is more of a thing of the past (uncoated or single coated lenses), while the 3D effect is so subjective, that no two people will agree about it. I find it more evident among the Zeiss glass anyway.<br>

3D, what 3D ?<br>

 

<p><img src="webkit-fake-url://B1C1FB5E-839A-4565-88D1-09C238B0756C/1459260603_fe393386c8_b.jpg" alt="1459260603_fe393386c8_b.jpg" /></p>

</p>

<p>Sharp and soft.</p>

<p>The Leica glow and Bokeh thing is just stuff that only Leica users can see. Others just see regular pictures. However the M camera's are pretty neat and durable.</p>

<p>O.K. Picture from a tram, no tripod, avaliable light, lousy focusing.... Which camera I used for this snapshot?</p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://s455.photobucket.com/albums/qq273/mccvi/?action=view&current=emil.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq273/mccvi/emil.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

<p>to me, the question is not whether it's a leica or not. it's whether it's a leica and you know how to use it to achieve that for which it was made (it's still, clearly, quite easy to take mediocre or poor images with a leica. it's when you know how to push a leica to show it's potential that the differences become clear). maybe others know how to get an image like the one above in natural light with another camera, i don't. so, for me, that's the leica mystique.</p>

<p>I like the subtlety of tones that I get from the leica-r lenses that I occasionally use on my canon digital camera. In particular, I notice that the leica 50mm f/2 that I have outperforms my canon 50mm 1.4 - albeit by a small margin, both in sharpness and in terms of contrast, color, and etc. I guess you could say it has a 3-d look. Then again, the leica is a pain in the ... to use when stopped down and since i also like the canon quite a bit I use that lens much more often. <br>

I also like the 180 elmar-r when used on a canon, but I find that the 100mm canon f/2 to be a slightly better performer, especially when stopped down on a tripod. Both are top notch stopped down a little, which is almost always how I use lenses of this focal length.<br>

I do not think that Leica lenses are any sort of magic bullet but I do like the ones I have, and since there are a few that are not too expensive why not try one for yourself. For example, I paid about $200 for a leica 50mm summicron-r about four years ago. That being said, as you are sure to know, many other leica lenses are priced out of this world. But the used market tends to be cheaper for leica-r gear than you, and perhaps others reading this posting may expect. While you are at it, why not pick up a leicaflex SL to use r lenses as they were intended...</p>

<p>I think people's negative emotions about Leicas are very strange. There quite obviously is a difference between almost any lens and any other. Personal preference always comes into play. Some prefer a biogon lens over a summicron. They are different. A Canon 50L is different from a Noctilux. Not necessarily "better", but different. If you can see the difference, and you have a preference, and you have the money, buy what you like.</p>

<p>Personally, I have used all kinds of lenses on all kinds of formats. The Leicas are special, and I will pay to have them. When I browse through my images over the years, one thing is certain: I can pick out the Canon glass from the Leica glass from the xxxxx glass in many, many cases.</p>

<p>Image quality aside, I also prefer the hardware. The build quality is excellent on M lenses, the rangefinder system is life changing, and a 50L on a 5D2 feels like heavy artillery compared to the M equivalent.</p>

<p>As for the Leica look, with the M8 and M9, I would say it comes to me as deep colors and tones that have a large "gamut" for lack of a better term. The tones are contrasty, yet complete and smooth. Add this to the gentle bokeh, and the look is very appealing to me.</p>

<p>Perhaps the glass formula allows for a more continuous spectrum of color than most. In that area, I feel the Zeiss lenses are similar.</p>

<p>I've owned Leica Ms and Nikon F2s for over 30 years now. I use them quite regularly, the Nikon for shooting critters with a telephoto from the car and the Leicas for hiking in the backcountry. I've had the pleasure of trying to compare slides from both cameras and in truth I have found no difference.<br>

The newest lens a 50mm f2 Summicron is a very nice lens, but so is my crusty old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AI. The images from either lens are indistinguishable.<br>

These days I believe all lenses are likely state of the art, comparisons are usually unconvincing in most cases.<br>

Believe me, I'd love to believe my Leica lenses are superior, but I cannot.<br>

I use my old Leicas (M2 and M4-P) because they are simple, lightweight, I own them, I like to take my time, they use film and I trust my light meter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For me, the Leica look is the glow of the images on Kodachrome. I use the best glass there is in Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica and the latter has a 3D glow that is distinctly different than any other lens. I used to think it was marketing / pixie dust, then I get back images that oooze off of the projector screen. </p>

<div></div>

<p>>Anyway, just tell me what are the key rendering qualities of Leica.<br />Bottomless sharpness, high contrast, accurate color rendition, and superb wide open performance. Here is a photo taken with an R9 with Digital Modul-R behind an f4/280 APO Telyt, handheld with shoulder stock, wide open at 1/4000th sec. ISO 200....cropped to 3% of the original frame. Yup! Three (3) percent.</p><div></div>

<p>Leica's are known for their colour accuracy. I have a 1937 90/4 Elmar, uncoated. The colours from this lens, even when using retail processing, is so accurate (I simply put the photo alongside the real object) that I felt I really didn't need any of the modern 90mm's. In fact, I felt the modern lenses were too saturated. I have since sold all coated Leica 90mm's and kept this 1937 lens as my only 90mm.<br>

I tend to use older lenses because I found generally the post-1970 lenses to be too sharp and contrasty. The earlier lenses are far more "gentlemanly".</p>