philip_pj wrote:
Dave Herring thinks you see the difference when you adapt M lenses to other cameras - they look 'cloudier and flatter' if you mount them on Sony cameras - goodness me, that sounds like a bad move. They have got to be on an M, to give you the look you crave! 'punchier and sharper'. He kicks off his spiel around 7:00.
That's not unreasonable. Steve Huff made a similar claim mounting a Nokton 58 f/1.4 on a Sony body and Leica SL body. He even has a comparison picture where you can see the bokeh as well as color rendition is different. Scroll down to the bokeh test section.
And that's mirrorless to mirrorless. The M body sensors are a unique design with offset microlenses to deal with steep ray angles that didn't' cause issues on film but do on digital sensors so I would expect a greater difference there.
philip_pj wrote:
Dave Herring thinks you see the difference when you adapt M lenses to other cameras - they look 'cloudier and flatter' if you mount them on Sony cameras - goodness me, that sounds like a bad move. They have got to be on an M, to give you the look you crave! 'punchier and sharper'. He kicks off his spiel around 7:00.
That's probably the silliest comment I've seen on this topic.
I've had quite a few Leica R lenses for about 30 years and I use them a lot (I really do like some of them).
The 'Leica look' is marketing bullshit and/or buyers remorse, both trying to justify the cost. Use what you want, enjoy it if you can. If not then move on to something else.
Seriously, how is it even possible to have a relatively consistent 'look' over decades of design and manufacturing let alone the evolution and improvement in coating technology? Spoiler-alert, It's not.
JohnJ wrote:
The 'Leica look' is marketing bullshit and/or buyers remorse, both trying to justify the cost. Use what you want, enjoy it if you can. If not then move on to something else.
Seriously, how is it even possible to have a relatively consistent 'look' over decades of design and manufacturing let alone the evolution and improvement in coating technology? Spoiler-alert, It's not.
I can provide some of my thoughts on how that might be possible and you can decide if you want to consider it.
The first, is because Leica has runs of basically the same optical designs for half a century or longer in certain cases. Most people will favor either a 50mm lens or a 35mm lens for 90-95% of their shooting. When it comes to 50mm. The Summicron 50 still sold today is basically a 1970s Mandler design with minor tweaks. That design was used both in the M line and R line with minor differences for the mirror in the R line, but not enough to change its character. It is still sold today with minor tweaks as version 5 or whatever it is today in the M line. The core rendering character remains even with minor evolutionary changes.
The Summilux is older going back to the 1960s and it's the same story. It was tweaked for R, but practically the same design as the M and shared rendering characteristics. These characteristics were refined over time instead of redesigned. The Summilux-R 50 Version 2 added an additional element to help with the strong curvature of the R and M predecessor. Then the M added an aspherical element and a floating lens group to overcome some of the issues of the previous one. Issues like flattening the strong curvature. Aspherical element for correction of additional aberrations. Floating lens group to help with poorer performance at close distance below f/2.8. This evolved the design, but did not revolutionized the design. The lens has unique characteristics especially in the bokeh that based on distance, aperture, and other conditions still remain very summilux between all versions from the 1960s to today.
Someone else can speak on their 35mm's that knows more about them than me.
The second, is that you can't correct all aberrations and then you need to make compromises and companies tend to favor certain compromises. Leica strives for neutral bokeh over under-corrected or over-corrected. Leica allows for curvature in many of their designs. Zeiss would strive to flatten the field. Leica often has less micro contrast and more shadow detail over Zeiss that tends to have strong micro contrast but also crushes the shadows because of it. Aberrations change with distance and what aberrations you correct at what distance contributes to the look. For whatever reason flare and veiling flare tends to always be worse on Leica. Leica would correct chromatic aberrations better over Zeiss. If you have let's say a head designer for 40 years or so at a company they tend to favor certain compromises. You end up with a consistent set of decisions. There is a lot more to be said about what characteristics are more prominent in Leica or Zeiss or Fuji or whoever's lenses.
Here are some comparisons and you can decide if you think the character changed or not. Then again, you can just claim that any 50mm f/1.4 would render similarly, but then post a comparison.
I can provide some of my thoughts on how that might be possible and you can decide if you want to consider it.
The first, is because Leica has runs of basically the same optical designs for half a century or longer in certain cases. Most people will favor either a 50mm lens or a 35mm lens for 90-95% of their shooting. When it comes to 50mm. The Summicron 50 still sold today is basically a 1970s Mandler design with minor tweaks. That design was used both in the M line and R line with minor differences for the mirror in the R line, but not enough to change its character. It is still sold today with minor tweaks as version 5 or whatever it is today in the M line. The core rendering character remains even with minor evolutionary changes.
The Summilux is older going back to the 1960s and it's the same story. It was tweaked for R, but practically the same design as the M and shared rendering characteristics. These characteristics were refined over time instead of redesigned. The Summilux-R 50 Version 2 added an additional element to help with the strong curvature of the R and M predecessor. Then the M added an aspherical element and a floating lens group to overcome some of the issues of the previous one. Issues like flattening the strong curvature. Aspherical element for correction of additional aberrations. Floating lens group to help with poorer performance at close distance below f/2.8. This evolved the design, but did not revolutionized the design. The lens has unique characteristics especially in the bokeh that based on distance, aperture, and other conditions still remain very summilux between all versions from the 1960s to today.
Someone else can speak on their 35mm's that knows more about them than me.
The second, is that you can't correct all aberrations and then you need to make compromises and companies tend to favor certain compromises. Leica strives for neutral bokeh over under-corrected or over-corrected. Leica allows for curvature in many of their designs. Zeiss would strive to flatten the field. Leica often has less micro contrast and more shadow detail over Zeiss that tends to have strong micro contrast but also crushes the shadows because of it. Aberrations change with distance and what aberrations you correct at what distance contributes to the look. For whatever reason flare and veiling flare tends to always be worse on Leica. Leica would correct chromatic aberrations better over Zeiss. If you have let's say a head designer for 40 years or so at a company they tend to favor certain compromises. You end up with a consistent set of decisions. There is a lot more to be said about what characteristics are more prominent in Leica or Zeiss or Fuji or whoever's lenses. ...Show more →
I think you are stretching things a bit too far. Whilst some of the design philosophy you refer to may apply to some periods, or lens lines, it's unrealistic to try to apply it to an entire brand and call it a 'look'. All makers, Minolta, Konica, Zuiko etc had a design philosophy which held true for a period, but then ends or changes. Leica made lenses for over half a century, and still does.
Leica made more than just M lenses. In the case of R lenses they used designs from various other companies too (eg Minolta 24, Schneider, and some of the Japanese brands for their early zooms). These were all sold as Leica R and had very different characteristics. Early and late ('90s) Leica R lenses are significantly different too. Images from an Apo-Summicron-R 180/2 share little with a Summilux-R 35 or 80. Or for that matter with an Elmarit-R 24/28 (minolta lens).
As an aside, my Summilux-R 35, I think an early '80s era lens, has surprisingly good flare control (compared with 35mm lenses from other makers of the same era).
JohnJ wrote:
I think you are stretching things a bit too far. Whilst some of the design philosophy you refer to may apply to some periods, or lens lines, it's unrealistic to try to apply it to an entire brand and call it a 'look'. All makers, Minolta, Konica, Zuiko etc had a design philosophy which held true for a period, but then ends or changes. Leica made lenses for over half a century, and still does.
That is why I don't dispute a claim to something like the Minolta look. I believe that is also a thing.
When was the first Leica made/sold? 1924? It's 2025. The original Summilux that evolved over time was introduced in 1962. That's a 63 year run. Does that mean that every lens has the same design? No, as you pointed out some designs were purchased from Minolta. However, the 50s had exceptionally long runs with evolutionary iterations and 50 is a pretty common focal length in most peoples kit. I would say that would qualify for a "look".
The modern Summicron 50 version started in 1976. That one has even less evolution as it remains a spherical design to this day. That's a 49 year run. Almost half a century. I would say that would qualify for a "look".
My take on Leica look, at least what I always notice and chasing, is the richness to the digital files. The contrast, richness to color, there's a deepness to them before I start shooting with one. And this seems to be associated to the early digital M.
Then I learned that part of the richness also comes from the glasses, particularly the modern ASPH glasses. The smooth tonal transition and color palettes are something I don't usually find from other systems, or even 3rd party lenses. I do have A7C while having the M-P240, Sony had come a long way with the color sciences but everytime when I try to pump the file it'll start to look unnatural, the Leica files I get just have that richness to them without being "over pumped".
So that lead to the OP question, is there a way to get that Leica rendering? The DLUX has wonderful Leica color palette, that already give you a nice Leica rendering for a start. But I feel there really isn't a way to emulate that (or else people won't be spending so much more for a Leica lens!), you can get close by pumping the saturation a little, increase the contrast, bump the clarity. Shooting with a Leica lens on a Leica (digital) M gives you that pretty much right off the bat, so you don't need to disturb the tonality much.
This was a snap shot as you don't want to point camera to anyone in the public in Japan. This was shot under a very overcast weather. The file was largely untouched, only slight bump of contrast and exposure. I would usually expected a rather washed out tonality and muddy mid tones in the past before I shoot with Leica, but this combo just pull off really nicely, at least to my own preferences.
From what I've read here, and elsewhere, I've decided that the "Leica Look" is in the eye of the beholder. And that look is influenced (controled?) by a variety hardware issues: lens design, glass, coatings ...etc., "sensor" technology, Film or Electronic, additional filters added to the lens....etc. I came to realize that "my Leica Look" is informed by an M4 I once owned a few decades ago, I pushed A LOT Kodak Tri-X and a fair bit of Plus-X and Panatomic-X through that camera. For color my preference was a film from Agfa (Agfa Color maybe?). What ever it was it produced deep rich muted tone, a look I attribute to oil paintings of the great renaissance painters.
So what does it me for me and my DL8? I'll be shooting a lot of JPEG images, I rather like the IQ of the DL8's JPEG settings. When I need to work with a DNG file I cooked up a setting or two based on Adobe Color & Adobe Monochrome that come close to the camera JPEG settings ( not an exact match but close enough). I might even spring for some Cobalt settings packs.
Good luck to you finding your Leica Look, and Happy Holidays.
There's no signature Leica style. There are no Leica colors. All Leica digital cameras have their own unique colors. The M9 and M8 stand out, completely unlike any other. I'd say the Hasselblad color is more recognizable.
When I was shooting films, I did a lot of comparisons including with professional photo testers, i.e. people writing books or publishing magazines. I was even shortly a DxO beta tester.
Anyhow, at the time, the lenses makers had a signature and sometimes it was obvious on slides and even of B&W negatives.
And I remembering showing Provia 100F shot with the 180mm/2.8 Apo R compared to the Nikon equivalent to a Nikon reseller and expert and he was impressed: the Leica colors were clearly something else. Historically, they were also known for a 3D look but it seems it came from under-correcting the spherical aberration.
Nowadays, because of the progress made by all lenses makers, the power of computers and the fact that digital allows for a lot of changes, I see no distinctive Leica look and I would rather buy excellent but cheaper lenses made by Sigma, Voigtlander and others. In fact, this is what I do.
And till someone shows me a print where one can see the difference between a Leica lens and another brand, I will not change.
When I say a print, this is because 100% crop is meaningless of course. Unless you spend more time pixel-peeping than trying to shoot interesting pictures.
I was also a big Agfa shooter. What most stood out to me from that film stock was saturated, rich greens and a slower overall change in tonality…these days, you would add saturation to the greens and shift them away from yellow a bit. You would also apply a tone curve with flatter (darker) quarter to mid tones. Easily done by pulling down the quarter tone line30-50%.
524f44 wrote:
Thanks all for your response to my query.
From what I've read here, and elsewhere, I've decided that the "Leica Look" is in the eye of the beholder. And that look is influenced (controled?) by a variety hardware issues: lens design, glass, coatings ...etc., "sensor" technology, Film or Electronic, additional filters added to the lens....etc. I came to realize that "my Leica Look" is informed by an M4 I once owned a few decades ago, I pushed A LOT Kodak Tri-X and a fair bit of Plus-X and Panatomic-X through that camera. For color my preference was a film from Agfa (Agfa Color maybe?). What ever it was it produced deep rich muted tone, a look I attribute to oil paintings of the great renaissance painters.
So what does it me for me and my DL8? I'll be shooting a lot of JPEG images, I rather like the IQ of the DL8's JPEG settings. When I need to work with a DNG file I cooked up a setting or two based on Adobe Color & Adobe Monochrome that come close to the camera JPEG settings ( not an exact match but close enough). I might even spring for some Cobalt settings packs.
Good luck to you finding your Leica Look, and Happy Holidays.
pmeheut wrote:
When I was shooting films, I did a lot of comparisons including with professional photo testers, i.e. people writing books or publishing magazines. I was even shortly a DxO beta tester.
Anyhow, at the time, the lenses makers had a signature and sometimes it was obvious on slides and even of B&W negatives.
And I remembering showing Provia 100F shot with the 180mm/2.8 Apo R compared to the Nikon equivalent to a Nikon reseller and expert and he was impressed: the Leica colors were clearly something else. Historically, they were also known for a 3D look but it seems it came from under-correcting the spherical aberration.
Nowadays, because of the progress made by all lenses makers, the power of computers and the fact that digital allows for a lot of changes, I see no distinctive Leica look and I would rather buy excellent but cheaper lenses made by Sigma, Voigtlander and others. In fact, this is what I do.
And till someone shows me a print where one can see the difference between a Leica lens and another brand, I will not change.
When I say a print, this is because 100% crop is meaningless of course. Unless you spend more time pixel-peeping than trying to shoot interesting pictures. ...Show more →
The pool of lenses has become an ocean of glass choices. The amount of difference that can be achieved on the endpoints can be dramatic. Yet, with the number of choices we now have ... the iterative differences can be seemingly small between any two lenses. In days of yore ... the differences were more starkly detectable without the variety of proximal alternatives that we have today.
Short answer, lots of glass out there that has "closed the gap", and in some degree Leica has charted a different course (Karbe vs. Mandler, et al) that has changed the direction of the gap, as well.
So, yeah ... it's harder to retain as being "well-defined" today than when it was monikered long ago. Same could be said for the Zeiss look, Oly look, Pentax look, etc. That said, those signatures of yore may remain in folks minds, too.
RustyBug wrote:
Same could be said for the Zeiss look, Oly look, Pentax look, etc. That said, those signatures of yore may remain in folks minds, too.
Indeed and any post-processing can change a lof of the remaining signature if it exists.
There are some lenses like the 50 1.0 Noctilux, 35 1.4 lux pre aspherical, 90 pre apo all have a look. Many modern lenses are insamely sharp but many lack the look many older lenses exhibit. Nothing wrong with either it just depends on what you are looking to get out of your work and whether the lens will give you that. Some would say a lot of the modern lenses have a clinical look to them. If you are doing images that require a really high degree of detail then one might consider one of those options. Some may like a bit more character for lack of a better word. And that matches the way they are seeing.
airfrogusmc wrote:
There are some lenses like the 50 1.0 Noctilux, 35 1.4 lux pre aspherical, 90 pre apo all have a look. Many modern lenses are insamely sharp but many lack the look many older lenses exhibit. Nothing wrong with either it just depends on what you are looking to get out of your work and whether the lens will give you that. Some would say a lot of the modern lenses have a clinical look to them. If you are doing images that require a really high degree of detail then one might consider one of those options. Some may like a bit more character for lack of a better word. And that matches the way they are seeing. ...Show more →
johnvanr wrote:
He's such a Leica pusher, though. I used to subscribe to his channel, but it just became too much.
And he isn't the only one. Even pros who use Leica for just one part of their work, constantly talk about it, while actually using other brands for a lot of their real work.
Totally agree....now whenever i see a Youtube title "3 days in the wilderness with my LEICA" or "Hi, I am Joe Blow and I am a LEICA photographer" I automatically skip over the video as I know they only put LEICA in the title or thumbnail because it seems to generate more clicks.
In regards to the so-called "Leica-look" I am firmly in the camp that it is marketing BS/ buyers remorse justification. Not to hate on Leica, I have a couple of their lenses and really enjoy them adapted to my non-Leica cameras. But I just as well enjoy a variety of other vintage lenses of which I own a lot of.
As a sneaky experiment a few years ago I posted some photos taken with vintage non-Leica lenses in a couple of FB Leica forums and got lots of comments from other users about how they LOVED the Leica look of those photos and how they could always tell right away when a Leica lens was used....I did not have it in my heart to disappoint them
