The Leica Look

Nikkor on the M Monochrom. <p>

 

Best of both worlds.

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/15262026255" title="Nikkor 13.5cm F4 by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3901/15262026255_e74ea0d5a0_o.jpg" width="681" height="1024"

alt="Nikkor 13.5cm F4"></a>

<p>After over 50 years of using a Leica, and others along the way, I'm not sure exactly what constitutes the "Leica look". I know that years ago the wider angle lenses seemed to produce a crisper image in the corners, as others mentioned; and the 50mm lenses wide open seemed to produce a central sharpness with a touch of flare as one headed toward the periphery, and the 135 Tele-Elmar was clinically sharp, being developed for the US Navy for at sea reconnaisance work. Many of the Leica lenses were optimized in design and production for their capabilities to best be realized at larger apertures, where I think that was less the case with other manufacturers. That said and done, I think the "look" was really more of a function of master photographers utilizing Leica's excellent lenses (for the times) along with their own well-developed capabilities to creatively use light and shadow, contrast, sharpness, and limited DOF. Had the same masters been handed Nikon or Canon lenses, I think their results would generally have been nearly indistinguishable from the Leica results, except perhaps at extreme enlargements.</p>

Nikkor 2.8cm F3.5, yellow filter on the M Monochrom.<p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/15115809237" title="Upstairs_Hall by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr">

<img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5563/15115809237_ab3e33d214_o.jpg" width="681" height="1024"

alt="Upstairs_Hall"></a>

 

<p>

 

This lens came out over 60 years ago, I just picked up this one. I have the S-Mount version on my SP.<p>

6 elements in 4 groups, coated optics. <p>

I also had the Df out with a 20/3.5 and 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor. Both newer designs- but retrofocus. The RF lens seems to be more crisp.<p>

<p>In my overactive imagination, it seems like many photos of human subjects are taken without the subject's awareness, doing things people do normally. That was Cartier-Bresson's stock in trade, and is done a lot easier with a Leica than a DSLR the size of your head, that sounds like a derailment. From 1962 onward, Leica has been the only serious non-SLR camera. The mirrorless trend may change that - cameras with a functional viewfinder rather than an LCD screen held at arm's length. This time around with closeups.</p>

<p>If anyone knows the "Leica look" - if there is such a thing - it's acclaimed photojournalist Peter Turnley, who has used Leicas since his youth, through the film and digital eras. There aren't many active, acclaimed photographers who have traversed the film and digital eras so thoroughly using a natural progression of the same basic equipment (although he has also used Nikon SLRs, which you can see in some older photos of Turnley on the job during the 1980s-'90s). You can compare his work - color and b&w, film and digital - through the decades <a href="http://blog.leica-camera.com/photography/m-system/peter-turnley-moments-of-the-human-condition-part-one/"><strong>here</strong></a>. If there's a "look" that's attributable to the camera, I'm not seeing it.</p>

<p>What I see is a photographer who possesses not only a rapport with people but a genuine love of humanity. Now mostly retired from photojournalism, he's an unabashed romantic and his "Leica look" often portrays people with fondness, generously, in a very traditional fashion - occasionally in quirky fashion - but never in a way that seems exploitative, random, hipshot, superficial or detached. His "Leica look" is completely different from Winogrand's, HCB's and most other Leica users.</p>

<p>I follow Peter's updates on Facebook. Only once have I read him talk about equipment - his preference for Leicas - and it wasn't to claim any particular superiority to the brand cachet, lenses or magical thinking. He simply prefers them as a tool - familiar, unobtrusive, more transparent between him and the people he photographs.</p>

<p>Mike Johnston wrote a piece on Luminous Landscape titled "The 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt" a decade or so ago. A good read that deals with this question. Still online, just google the title.</p>

<p>I don't think there is a special Leica feel, but I am reluctant to join those who rubbish the whole notion.<br>

I have an M6. By the time they produced the M6, Leica had bundled together the best of what you need to make excellent people and landscape photos in 35mm. Some would say they had reached an earlier peak with the M3 and its contemporary lenses. I don't know whether digital Leicas have reached another similar peak yet.<br>

When I bought my M6 (second-hand) a little over 10 years ago, I stopped feeling that my failed photos might have been better if only I had a better camera. To be honest, having falling prey to the hype, I was expecting a step change, but it wasn't like that. Practically speaking, the differences in successful photos I took pre- and post-Leica are small once they have been properly printed. It's hard to tell which of them was taken with which camera. I do get many more successes with the Leica than I got previously, but then again I am a more experienced photographer too. Quality differences I do notice in the images are: (1) when I get the exposure right, the resolution of shadow details is fabulous, and that adds considerably to the rich look of the print; (2) full-aperture shots in low light are frequently excellent, something I had never experienced before.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>I think the "Leica Look" is more the way the photographer using a Leica "looks" at the subject to be photographed. I find that true with the Leica rangefinders. Using them I take more time (manual focus) and care in composition. I shoot less rapidly and the results give me a "less is more" result -- fewer photographs but better ones. But I will add that in the days of Kodachrome I definitely felt that color slides made with Leica lenses (rangefinder or reflex) seemed to have more "snap" and brilliance than those made with my Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>I was attracted to Leica maybe 35 years ago by the subtle and beautiful tones of the Kodachromes made by my 2nd ex's M3 and Summarit, and the clarity of the images. At that time, this was beyond my experience.<br>

Now I think good lenses are just good lenses, whatever the make, and most of them are better than I am as a photographer. (whatever that means)</p>

Edward the Zeiss 50f1.5 is a very different lens and you either like it or hate it. Personally I love mine but it is not an

everyday lens. I probably use it less than 1/10th as much as my 50 cron or 35 lux. But while sometimes the Bokah looks

odd it can deliver a unique look. It is one of those lenses like the Fuji Gx680 180 f3.2 or the old Canon FD 85 F1.2 that

can produce a unique portrait - especially on the crop M8. The Leica noctilux is another lens that can deliver a unique

look. Wide open none of these lenses is perfect (I don't own the noctilux and to be fair the Fuji is pretty good) but they do

allow you to create an image that stands out. Wide poem there is no modern lens I know that creates an image similar to

the Zeiss Sonnar - whereas my Canon system gets very close to the 50 cron for a lot less money.

<p>While taken with an M9 and a Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8, I think this photo demonstrates what I recall as a "Leica Look." The foreground is sharp, while the background fades gracefully into a soft blur. It gives a three dimensional look to an otherwise ordinary photograph. A few others from that excursion are posted in my meager Gallery.</p>

<p>I took an afternoon to just have fun shooting pictures in a park, a chance to get away from the computer and video editing, and with subjects not burdened by privacy issues. In one sense, it may be a swan song for my M3 and a roll of Ektar 100, which I used in parallel. I don't have the results yet. It's a 30 minute drive to the nearest processing facility, and I will couple that with another errand in the vicinity.</p>

<p><img src="/photo/17865950" alt="" /></p>

<p>The link doesn't seem to work. This is the photo I intended to include.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Ok, Ok, the Leica "look". Its a photo shot with a fast lens generally wide open that has a smothish background and a subject that sort of "pops". I'm not sure it has anything to do with Leica. But here's one actually taken with a Leica cam and lens... She has...the "look"!! <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11553570-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The "look", sans the "sharp" part.</p>

<p>Seems sharp enough to me.</p>

<img src="http://www.leicaplace.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=59&d=1365294529"><p>

 

The Sonnar Look. 1934 5cm F2 Sonnar, Deep Yellow filter, wide-open on the M Monochrom, Custom adapted to Leica mount. <p>

Straight export to JPEG with LR3.6.

<p>Nice portrait. It almost looks like a Softar filter was used - sharp where it counts, smooth where it doesn't. A Sonnar on an Hasselblad behaves much differently.</p>

Thankyou- my daughter has been photographed with some obscure lenses custom adapted to a Leica.

 

When I hear someone ask about "The Leica Look"- it is a term easily defined up through the mid 1960s. The

fundamental design philosophy of the optics were different from Zeiss and Nikon. Even the "Long Focal length

Lenses" - the Elmar 9cm F4 and 13.5cm F4.5 Hektor were fundamentally different: they were not telephoto designs,

but longer focal length astigmats. The philosophy was to provide the highest degree of optical corrections

possible.This came at the expense of transmission, contrast, and size. Optical lens coatings improved contrast and

transmission, and moved optical designers away from Sonnar type designs that minimized the number of air/glass

interfaces.

 

Once SLR's were introduced- optics had to be designed to accommodate the mirror and big flange distance. With digital, sensors don't do well with steep angles of incidence. Leica lenses have the advantage of short flange distance and offset microlens arrays.

<p>I am fortunate that I have never been able to see the 'Leica Look'. Therefore I can mount any good quality lense on my M8's and be extremely happy. I have always liked the Leica bodies for the feel size and quality of workmanship. I began using Leica bodies back in 1956 and down thru the years have continued to along with some Canon IVS2's and a couple of Towers. I currently have 2 M8 bodies and my old original purchase M3 film body. I like them all but only have one Leica Lense. My M8's both wear VC lenses that I am emminently happy with and find them more than adequate for my use.My M3 wears it's original 50mm F2 Leitz Summitar. I consider myself lucky in this respect as I am rarely disappointed with results. I have only seen one case where Film characteristics have been duplicated by Digital. That was Using the Fuji badged and modified Nikon D bodies. The Fuji's actually had a mode you could select that duplicated Fuji film characteristics very satisfactorily. It's a shame they didn't carry on that Pro line or I would probably still be a DSLR user.I went to the D2X's and they took me back to the digital Leica's as the DSLR's just got overly complex for me. To me photography has always been a pleasurable hobby only. When you have to work at it it loses it's appeal.</p>

Leica, Zeiss, and others make some great lenses that help a photo sing if other very important factors are present, like

good light, good exposure, and good processing. The particular lens being used has an influence on the final outcome, as the particular guitar of a musician influences his or her sound. The influence of the particular high level quality tool chosen is less than that of the craftsman or artist using it.

 

The problem comes when novice craftsmen or artists think that using a particular brand will make their work

good or great, or when they obsess over it as much or more than they do their own craftsmanship.

<p>Don't know about the whole 'Leica Look' thing, but I know my M9 files look different than anything else I've ever shot with. They are great right out of the camera, often I don't even do anything to them. (I have tweaked every Canon file I've ever delivered.) Some say it's the CCD sensor. </p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5513/11428504455_deb5331254.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3889/14783290723_3566fb50c8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7401/13644460795_947b8c00aa.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Nice shots Ian; I'm especially liking the middle one. Is the M9 the first Leica digital you've shot with?

<p>Thanks Ray. Yes, first Leica digital. Still getting used to it, but love shooting with it.<br>

That middle one is the Voigtlander 50/1.5</p>

OK, I thought it was probably a 50..

So if Leica doesn't have a "look" does that mean that all manufacturer's lenses, across the board, look the same? Just sayin'...