The Leica Look

[atina_de_greffuhle]

<p>I would like to ask you some questions about “the Leica look”.</p>

<p>1. What is it? What are it characteristics? Where can I see it? Are there any books or Web sites with the photos having the look? Who are some photographers who are the masters of the look? When did the look originate?<br>

<br />2. Do the Leica-branded Panasonic cameras have the look? Is the sensor Panasonic's? Is the look the look from a Panasonic compact camera?</p>

<p>3. Will the Leica ever again produce another CCD M camera? Are there people who think that the CMOS M photos look the same or better than the CCD M photos?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I thought the "leica look" was an image of a very light wallet.</p>

<p>(runs and hides...)</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>The "look" is often a myth. Some link it to using old design rangefinder lenses. Not only Leica had then lenses with optical challenges and distortion. </p>

[Brian1664876441]

Leica has a CCD camera in current production, the M-E. It is basically an M9 without frameline preview lever, and iss priced almost $1,800 below the M9.

 

As for the Leica Look- the design philosophy of Leica was different from that of Zeiss- going back to the 1930s.

 

http://www.the.me/unique-blend-of-compactness-super-speed-and-perfect-imperfections-1930s-sonnar-lenses-on-the-leica-m9-and-m-monochrom/

[JDMvW]

<p>I am guessing you mean the Leica "Glow", not the style of the camera case. I always suspected it was a combination of halation on older films and the inadequate (by modern standards) lens coating.</p>

<p><br /> Here is an example of Leica Glow from a loverly gold and rosewood LTM "Leica" and "Elmar"</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>There is no such thing as the Leica look. People who say otherwise are fooling themselves. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing as the Leica look. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I disagree. The Leica Look is usually a "retro" styled body with a red dot. Sometimes the red dot is missing.<br /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There's no such thing. Unless you mean the soap-bar shaped body. Look at the decades of photos taken with Leicas before the digital era. The styles, aesthetics, every possible factor, all vary wildly according to the photographers' tastes, skills and choices.</p>

<p>The Leica rangefinder is a tool that some folks prefer over SLRs for the compact size and uninterrupted viewfinder. What they *do* with the tool is often applied retroactively by fans who'd like to believe it's the tool or instrument rather than the craftsperson or player.</p>

<p>Fans who enjoy emulating their heroes contribute to reification. They use Leicas for "street photography". Therefore the Leica is perpetually reinforced as the tool for street photography. Therefore Leica photographs tend to have a certain "look" regardless of the recording medium - film, digital, CCD, CMOS, fly paper, whatever makes the image stick - because users tend to emulate the looks of the photos they admired. If they admired Winogrand, Peter Turnley, Andreas Feininger, Robert Frank, Ralph Gibson, HCB, Friedlander, even Capa (whose Leica was a Contax on D-Day), they emulate that look with film Leicas or the digital Leica M. The looks are all different, but they're all the "Leica look".</p>

[Brad_]

<a href= "http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lza0zt7TC11r2bsduo1_1280.jpg">The Leica look.</a>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>It exists especially in black and white.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It exists in the minds of people who HAVE to believe it exists in order for them to justify, to their wives, their purchase of camera equipment that costs considerably more than the car she drives...</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Take a look at the work of Cartier-Bresson or Robert Capa and a few others who used Leica regularly. That's the Leica look and it's different things for different people. Leicas, like any other camera, are simply tools and different people like different tools to accomplish the same job. <br /><br />Rick H.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Searching for a Leica look is actually much like searching for the differences between CCDs and CMOS sensors: a lot of tales, hardly scientific "proof" on blogs with no credentials and so on. There are simply too many variables to make any of this seriously stick:</p>

<ul>

<li>

If I use a Leica M lens on a Sony A7, do I get leica look, or do I need all Leica, all the way? Can any APS-C mirrorless get a Leica look?

</li>

<li>

Does Leica R and S have the look? Or only M series and the older rangefinders?

</li>

<li>

Which film should be used for best evaluation of the look? In case of digital: which software (never mind the sensor type, the software will level most of that out).

</li>

<li>

Does my cheap Panasonic P&S, which has Leica written on its lens, have the Leica look? I don't think so, it gets soundly beaten by my smartphone, which has the Zeiss look.

</li>

</ul>

<p>It's much what Lex wrote: Leica is much associated with a style of photography (and it clearly works very well for that), combined with on average very high quality lenses it does mean that they've always managed to stand out. Is it a look, a style, or is it actually much down to the photographer? </p>

<p>I do know that the very little bit of Leica gear I own (R6+lens), feels very well made and the lens is seriously good. It does work really well for me, but whether it has a very distinct different look than my Nikon gear? Can't really say it does; but it sure does look a whole load better than the Leica lens on my panasonic P&S.</p>

[Thomas J.]

<p>I had an M5 w/35mm 'cron and a Nikon FG w/nikkor 50mm and there was hardly a difference between the B&W images I made with each system side by side. Sometimes it appeared to me that the FG+50mm made more contrasty images than the M5+35mm. The only difference, of course, is my Leica was 25x more expensive than the Nikon. I also had an R4 w/35-70mm Elmar which made nice images as well but the high cost didn't justify keeping it....especially being film equipment. I sold all my Leica film gear earlier this year. <br /><br /><br /> Although the look and feel of Leica M's and even R's is quite impressive, the prices are way way too inflated.... but they're marketing to a rich consumer and status seekers, so they get away with the ridiculous prices. Leica digital equipment is even more insanely priced. For what??</p>

<p>I think Peter Hamm said it all perfectly up above.</p>

[leicaglow]

If you have truly owned Leicas, then you know Leica Glow is real. To me it is a unique pop of an

image from the background, a biting sharpness against a beautiful oof area. It is apparent all the

time, but more often when shooting wide open.

 

My theory is it has something to do with the short distance between lens and film plane, a d design

of the lenses and glass. More recently, we have seen it reproduced by zeiss and voightlander M

lenses.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Leica Look is a product of the style of photography peculiar to rangefinder cameras and the photographers who subscribe to that style.</p>

<p>At one time, I fancied that I could tell which photos in National Geographic, for example, were take with Leicas and which with Nikons. This was in the 60's and early 70's before SLRs came to dominate photography. Somehow Leica lenses imparted more snap - contrast and detail - than other cameras. I think now that there were other factors in play.</p>

<p>I bought my first Leica fifty years ago, when news people were split between those and the upstart Nikon F. Those lenses were definitely sharper than from Nikon, and hardly more limited in focal range - 35mm to 105mm at the outside. Black and white was everyday grist, with color for the weekends and big city papers. We learned to develop and print for publication, while the hoi poloi settled for grim, muddy prints from the corner camera shop. B&W can be luminous and open, if you do it right.</p>

<p>The 60's also saw a migration away from the routine use of flash, indoors and out. If you've ever used a flash with a Leica M2 or M3, you can understand why it was a last resort. What's a hot shoe? Available light photography, coupled with slow shutter speeds (the fastest film was Tri-X at 320, later 400 ISO) adds to the "glow" of early Leica photography. I removed the reflector to use bare flash bulbs for fill. Like modern diffusing caps, they fill the room with light without overwhelming it. Newsprint is not very tolerant of shadows under the eyes - and editors weren't shy about telling you so.</p>

<p>The "standard" lens for a Leica was (and probably still is) a fast wide angle, usually shot wide open. Limiting the depth of field adds "pop" to photos in any genre (save landscapes), and the relatively simple, compact rangefinder lenses look better out of focus than the complex semi-retro-telephoto SLR lenses. It didn't hurt to have nearly round aperture openings with 10 to 15 blades, compared to 5 to 6 blades for SLRs. Guess what? That's the new "standard" for mirrorless cameras like the high-end Fuji and Sony models.</p>

<p>Where do we stand today? Leica, for now, still excels in lenses for wide angle. They are virtually distortion free (< 0.5%), no lateral color (<0.5%) and sharp from corner to corner. I have prime lenses for my Nikon from 20mm to 105mm, and fast zooms from 17 to 300. None comes close to Leica performance in the wide to normal range. Even Hasselblad comes in a close second, despite the format advantage.</p>

<p>People are less self-conscious facing a petit Leica than a Nikon, for which the smallest lens is over 3" in diameter. I'm more comfortable without all that weight in front, and my back is grateful too. Plus I'm not getting criticized over the shutter/mirror noise.</p>

<p>Is CCD coming back in force? Probably not. CMOS sensors make much more efficient use of real estate - less lost space between cells. In addition, much of the image processing, like noise reduction, can be done in the sensor itself, using much less power and generating much less heat. CCDs run hot and use up the battery quicker. Really high performance CCDs need cooling. Some MFD cameras use thermoelectric cooling, mine (Hasselblad CFV) uses a small fan. Astronomical and scientific CCDs use liquid nitrogen.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p> The Leica Look was a romance novel, sometimes translated as "the look of Leica". </p>

[DB_Gallery]

Where I see the biggest difference in Leica to other camera systems is the way the glass treats slide film. I especially saw

it in Kodachrome which is also where I noticed it most in Nat Geo from the late 70's into the 90's. I now shoot mostly black

and white and it is not as big a difference if at all, I could bump up 1/2 a paper grade with Nikon glass in printing and no

one would be the wiser, especially when using stellar lenses like the 24 & 35 1.4G which also give Leica glass a run for

it's money in color.

 

The latter is why I sold almost all my Leica gear, the newest glass from Nikon is nipping at the heels of modern Leitz for

thousands less. But I still have one M3 and a fabulous 50mm 1.4 aspheric that I love to shoot black and white in and look

forward to doing a project on Fuji Provia 400X.

 

Lenses like the 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.4 aspheric still give that Leica look especially wide open, they just pull a much

more cinematic and rich tonal range out of medium to low light, it's stunning when it shines...

 

Other than that, it is a state of mind....

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>The "look" is often a myth.<br>

There's no such thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, looks do exist and sensors, filters, film stocks and lenses (and light!) all play a part. Does Leica have a look that nobody else has? That, I believe, is debatable. Of course you could put Instagram/PS filters on your photo and that would be another look as well, but that is <em>ex post facto</em>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Leicas, like any other camera, are simply tools and different people like different tools to accomplish the same job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not an unfair statement. But the camera you use can affect what kind of photos you do and can take. Not always, though. We should consider the idea that the Leica does not exist for the sake of the viewer, but for the sake of the photographer. The system is what matters. The bodies are not the lightest or the smallest or the most reliable, depending on your metric and reference frame. But when the system is taken as a whole, it shines, as all RF systems do if they´re any good.</p>

<p>Armchair philosophers will have us believe that an iPhone, a Leica M9 and a Hasselblad H4 can all take the same photos at all times. But we - basing our opinions on experience - know differently.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If I use a Leica M lens on a Sony A7, do I get leica look, or do I need all Leica, all the way? Can any APS-C mirrorless get a Leica look?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To answer your first question, no, if you are using an A7 or A7r. Probably, if you are using an A7S. It´s all in the lens, but the way that the original A7 bodies are designed reduces lens performance at the image borders. To answer your second question, yes, if the lenses are Leica and if there is a Leica look in the first place.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Does Leica R and S have the look? Or only M series and the older rangefinders?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Assuming that these are not rhetorical questions: I don´t know about the R lenses, but the S system is superb as its lenses are very well corrected (either that or the software based correction is excellent). Is a D800E with great lenses is better? You make up your own mind:</p>

<p>http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/</p>

<p>Having said that, is the S2 worth the asking price? Up to you. If you don´t think you need that level of resolution, why buy either? I´m not a DSLR fan either way.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To me it is a unique pop of an image from the background,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It could be, but maybe the glow or pop is more to do with a specific lens design than the whole system. For instance, is it just the ´radioactive´ 50mm Summicrons? Some say the old 90mm Summicron is similar. Zeiss SuperSpeeds (cinema lenses) are sought after for similar reasons, no doubt because their lens elements contain lead.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Leica, for now, still excels in lenses for wide angle. They are virtually distortion free (< 0.5%), no lateral color (<0.5%) and sharp from corner to corner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should see the distortion figure for the Zeiss ZM 35/2. It´s jaw-droppingly low, almost non-existent. I wish all Zeiss and Leica lenses were that good! After all, if I want significant distortion, I can buy a Nikon for $100.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the newest glass from Nikon is nipping at the heels of modern Leitz for thousands less</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In some cases I won´t doubt you - but as far as non-macro 50mm lenses go, Nikon still has nothing great. The best value 50mm for the F mount is definitely not a Nikon - it´s the Sigma 50/1.4 Art. It costs less than the 55/1.4 G and a way better performer. That is, if cost and quality matter. I do own the 50/1.8 D and it´s good. Probably the best 50mm Nikon makes and it´s $100. I´m not sure why one would bother with the 1.4´s.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p >I agree broadly with other opinions here. The “Leica look” really consists of two phases – the first was the results given by the Mark I Summicrons and evidenced by the work from the mid-50 onwards by Cartier-Bresson and the others. Most Leica fans including me would love to travel back in time and buy a set of these Summicrons (35, 50 and 90).</p>

<p >The second phase started with the Summicron Mark IV, when Leica seemed to be concentrating on the perceived needs of the photo enthusiast and deliberately computed lenses with high (some would say ferocious) micro-contrast, the results (color slides) from which would leap out when projected in among the products of other marques. Owners said </p>

<p >“<em>Leica lenses imparted more snap - contrast and detail - than other cameras.”</em> </p>

<p >The downside was that these lenses produced revolting results in b+w – the normal contrast-reduction technique of more exposure, less development hardly worked anymore. I bought a brand-new 50mm Summicron IV, never got a b+w pic I liked and sold it in disgust.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I'll bet I could put together a series of images taken using Leicas and cameras/lenses from other manufacturers and NOBODY would be able to say which images came from which. </p>

[Brian1664876441]

It was much easier to see the Leica Look when Leica and Zeiss were the two companies that dominated the high-end 35mm market. Leica went the Planar route with highly symmetric lenses, Zeiss went with Sonnar formula lenses, asymmetric designs. These days, most fixed focal length lenses are of the Planar, highly Symmetric designs that have been tweeked.

 

Post pictures with a Summar/Summitar/Summicron and those with a Sonnar, look at the out-of-focus areas- you can tell them apart. Leica- swirlies, Zeiss- no swirlies.

[philip_wilson]

I will say that while I love my M240 I think I prefer the simpler handling and look of the older. CCD bodies (M8 and 9).

The older bodies allow you to almost ignore the rear LCD and digital bits whereas the M240 does not. I spend a lot more

time looking at the back of the M240 than I do my M8. In terms of the. CCD I find there is something more film like about

the colours and image than with the CMOS of my M240. That said the M240 produces more accurate colours, is much

better at higher ISO but shadow noise is not as pleasant.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Zeiss 35/2.8 has more distortion than the f/2 version (1% v < 0.5%), but is sharper everywhere, even in the corners. Only the Summilux ASPH does as well. No Nikon lens comes even close, at least at the edges of the field. What I thought was good with the Nikon now looks like it has vasoline in the corners by comparison. That's the price you pay for retrofocus design.</p>

<p>The highly symmetrical, rather bulbous Biogon lenses don't fare well when tested on the Sony Alpha, due to its close proximity to the film plane. However it does fine on an M9, sharp, with very little vignetting. Even that's gone if you plug it in as a Summicron 35/2 pre-ASPH.</p>

<p>Zeiss makes 50mm ZM lenses with both Sonnar and Planar designs. The Sonnar is quirky, from what I've seen, with strange bokeh and a definite focus shift when stopped down. If any lens has a "look" or "glow", it is the Sonnar - like portraits with a diffuser, similar to the old Summitar 50s. Perhaps f/1.5 is pushing the envelope, because my Hasselblad 150/4 and 180/4 Sonnar lenses have no such behavior.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only look I've seen that could - upon close inspection - distinguish a photo from a Leica or other top notch rangefinder from a typical SLR was in wide angle photos, usually 35mm or wider. The edges and corners were generally sharper with fewer distortions than comparable focal length SLR retro-focus wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>I've toyed with the idea of getting an older Leica III or Cosina/Bessa for use with one good ultrawide, just for that purpose - to avoid the disappointing smeared corners and edges in my SLR system ultra-wides. But on the APS-C type dSLRs it doesn't matter as much since that problem area is cropped out with wide angle lenses designed for 24x36/full frame.</p>

<p>But the separation between a sharply focused subject and out of focus background/surroundings... I've seen that effect with many camera/lens systems. Several times when I thought I was looking at a Leica M b&w film photo, it turned out the photographer had instead used his dSLR and fast prime (Canon, I think) and converted to monochrome. In typical online JPEGs I can't tell the difference. That look isn't unique to Leica.</p>