The fact that we were able to identify which photo was taken with the Leica in all 5 cases is IRREFUTABLE proof that it has a unique look. Whether we can replicate or describe it is another matter, and the fact that they look “similar” doesn’t mean that Leica’s inherent particularity doesn’t exist. The ability to identify them in a blind test is the evidence.
Old school ex photojournist perspective: The reson we caried a Leica back in the day around the neck with the 28mm always ready was mainly about the quiet function and dependability. The photo "look" was only an esoteric art value that was far down the list of reasons you wanted that camera in really bad situations.
I believe that the ‘Leica Look’ is influenced by two important factors. Firstly, the camera lenses. Leica optics have their own characteristics, which are clearly visible in the image. This is a crucial element when creating specific look on a movie by the dop. It’s common to use Leica lenses in filmmaking to achieve a softer look, a specific bokeh, but with a lot of contrast to bring out the subject, the famous 3D Pop, which is more pronounced with certain lenses than others. The 35mm 1.4 lens is definitely part of this. However, I don’t think the camera itself and its sensor play a significant role in achieving the Leica Look. It could be interesting to conduct a test by swapping lenses between different camera bodies. On the other hand, using a Leica M is not the same as using a camera like the R5 or an A7. And since the tool is fundamentally different, it’s employed in a different manner to capture distinct images, and that’s what sets it apart.
M mount lenses(especially wides) tend to not behave as well corner to on anything but an M body, do to the extremely thin sensor stack and micro lenses.
Hey David. I’ve been a Sony shooter for years, and just got my Leica. I definitely picked the correct one. I’ve been thinking heavily on this topic that past few weeks whether it’s in my head as clever marketing or if it’s something real. The contrast, warmth, and bokeh stand out. But I think the Leica opts to in some way to color and skew toward bokeh in a way that Sony doesn’t. Like that’s its character; skew toward warmth, bokeh, and an insane dynamic range. Staring at Leica photos for weeks, it made it somewhat easy for me to pick out in your video. But to agree in a way, a lot of the look can be washed out quickly with presets and color grading. It’s definitely something out of camera that needs less editing, so my theory is the Leica Look just comes out nearly raw for everyone to see and the Look is just out there more often. If an image is edited and color graded as usual, then it really becomes hard to tell it’s a Leica.
I see a little bit of extra subject isolation and 3D pop but MOSTLY it was in the nature of the blur in the back ground that made me shoot correctly. It's got a pleasing painterly look to it.... almost like a medium format film camera... like the back ground isn't a photo but a charcoal drawing.
Wow I loved this what an honest and well done topic. Too many times we get caught up in what is "better" and instead of appreciating all the options and different ways for image creation.
I really appreciate this video. It's always seemed so strange to me how alluring Leica and Leica lenses are, while no one ever quantifies or objectively analyzes what's going on. I don't even own a Leica, as much as I've always wanted one. Mostly because I'm too drawn to medium format. Just the other day though I got into another frenzied Leica-hole shopping for an M6 TTL and Summilux I couldn't afford. One of the blog/reviews I was reading was reviewing a (film) body without mentioning the lens, and looking at the photos I literally, more than I had in a long time, thought "wow that Leica pop/look is serious". At the end it mentioned the lens, which was some $300 3rd party lens I'd never even heard of. I have never had a Leica or Leica lens, and just because I want one so much in the future I found myself rationalizing it and convincing myself of how I made the mistake. I'm wondering more about the psychology around this phenomenon, but I still don't feel convinced the "look" isn't real or more than character (which seems silly). I shoot film only, so my constant data logging of Leica/Zeiss looks are found in a world of lenses filled with character by default and camera "sensors" mostly being just the same film stock. I think a more comprehensive test would be really interesting. Same lenses adapted to the same body, indoors with controlled lighting, outdoor portraits, different lenses and DOF etc to really feel sure one way or another. When I come across a compelling image I typically stare for more than 3 seconds to take it in as well. I don't own a Leica and I find myself coping, so I assume that even rational Leica shooters will write you off. I suspect you're mostly spot on, but I hope not. All of my lenses are vintage, high quality and have character. I need to keep buying better gear, not improving my craft!! F*** you!
Interesting. I instinctively got four of the five. The other one was the flair shot, I was uncertain on that one. But once I "knew" I feel I can see the same clues in the none flaired areas. It's hard to quantify but it's something to do with the transition as you approach the highlights , ❤
It's more so the softer transition between the focused and out of focus areas. That's what gives it the 3D pop. The fewer the elements in fewer groups helps sustain this look and feel.
Thnx for inspiring us to do a video like yours in future. As a leica shooter I could spot all the leica photos in the comparison. It is easy and the way I see it is the following things: 1. Vignetting 2. Center focus is always brighter than the background 3. High details but not sharp (the contrast is higher to make it more detailed but the boundary between bright and dark is not abrupt). Point 1 and 2 is always consistent and somehow it really looks like there is a spotlight illuminating only the subject against a dark background. No other lenses could do this. But stepping aside, I feel that you need to be specific about the specific Leica lenses you used to describe the look. In your case M lenses; In production: Lux asph Vs APO ASPH. Then you have all the vintage M stuff out of production. If you talk about the leica look as described by the three points I said, the vintage M ones and Lux asph have it. Apo asph M don’t. Nor does Q or SL or other leica line up. It is that simple. I agree colour should be left out of the description regarding the leica look: it doesn’t really play a role and you could still recognise a leica in monochrome photos. Will do a shout out to you when I join the discussion on YT with some samples from my side.
Thanks for sharing! Fan of your channel, and I don’t disagree with anything you’ve shared here. The point I’m making is that the perceived “Leica Look,” a better and unique look to many, is really not too far from other systems and is found more character than the elusive microcontrast or 3D pop, which remain universally agreed upon and undefined.
@@davidherring for sure. That’s why the vintage stuff is highly sought after because they dont have something similar from other system. Like the steel rim 35 with the crazy glow that leica failed to replicate exactly in their reissue. Love to see more videos from you. Maybe we can try a collab zoom for some image comparison or review also in future.
Dave, have you done any shooting with vintage lenses? I think that's where you get even more of the Leica look. I have a 50mm Lux type 2 from 1968 (my dad's) and the look from that lens has that Leica glow and crazy bokeh wide open. Probably similar to the steel rim re-issue.
1. The placebo effect is real, 2. Studies are fine, but the effect still does depend on the individual patient and his or her situation. And the look of the images on the photographer.
What a great video. In common with most of your audience I do not have a Leica but fascinated with the enthusiasm of the users, and watch a lot of videos. I was lucky enough recently to be lent a Leica M6 for a couple of weeks. A serious shock to the system from a Fuji XT1. Really enjoyed the quality of the product and the Leica experience. One day perhaps a digital version but I am too impatient to go the film route. I look forward to following your channel.
thanks for keeping it real and being one of the few content creators that actually do an A/B comparison between Leica and other brands. Too many times other Leica channels only focus on unsubstantiated claims of how the camera makes them feel, instead of focusing on the real images which are output by the camera.
I’m not a Leica owner, unfortunately. I’m just a poor dive instructor in Thailand. But I’m a huge photography and camera nerd. A few years back, when I deeply looked into Leica and carefully looked at 100s of photos online I was able to almost 100% determine if a photo was shot with a Leica or another system. The Leica look surely is real. Thank you for a very interesting video. Looking forward to the next one. Greetings, Dominic
i'm not a Leica shooter. i even never touch Leica, and never really heard about "Leica Look". i was a Sony shooter tho. but i can easily identified which one is the Leica in all the 5 samples. the first thing i noticed is how crisp Leica images are.. it's like you can see the individual grass, and understand it shape. in Sony images the grass looks like it just bland together into one green scene. others thing that i noticed from Leica images are the contrast, the vignatte, and the 3d pop. yeah may be "Leica 3d pop" is a real thing.
I am a Sony shooter who has a very old Leica X1 (bought used) and I got 4 of 5 correct. Your point is well taken there are very subtle differences between the two. I think the jpg is where Leica shines. Thanks for the video.
I totally agree with you. I own Leica Q, SL2-s, M240 and previously owned an M10. I came from Sony, Canon and Fuji. There is color differences between sensors of course, but other than that, I think you can produce almost the same results using any camera. The thing that makes Leica is special is workflow and design of their cameras. The Leica look was more prominent when lenses wasn't as good as they are today. 15 years ago the camera landscape was different, expensive Canon/Nikon lenses was still not as good as Leica lenses but today, Sigma lenses are as good as any of the higher end professional lenses. I think there's a lot of trying to justify the purchase of Leicas that's going on, especially on forums online. It's ridiculous. Buy what you like, the most important thing is that you want to pick your camera up, it's as simple as that.
For sure! Like I shared in the video, we’re beyond the point where specs matter. I think it’s 99% about experience, and shooting with whatever inspires you.
I've been using the Leica M from film to digital since the early 90s . I'm also using the Sony A7 series and the Fujifilm GFX. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages . At the end of the day, I keep going back to my M mainly due to portability and the character of the images. To me, they have a film look and need fewer editing to produce that film image quality that I prefer. And the images are not as clinical as the others. It could be due to the vintage lenses which I have been using since those days ie Mandler designed lenses. I've also given the Hasselblad digital a go but it's too perfect for my taste. Perhaps, I'm just old school
I got my Leica M9 because of the experience, not the look, the CCD sensor does render differently to CMSO though. I love the results and using the camera is so pleasurable. Picked out all 5 correctly, and for me, they just had a bit more character.
The 35 lux is my favorite lens, the shallow look with a 35mm is refreshing and shocking at times. I agree with your observations and thoughts. I just see the vignette on the lux first, but as you noted the grass gives it away with a more 3d look. The only thing I see is her sitting on the grass shot. Her face and torso glow more (but that could be the angle) but her jeans and knee/shin show more contrast compared with the Sony shot. The foliage on the left and the grass both seem to have more separation.
I shot film for 20 yrs with M6 and Nikon. Essentially the Leica lens acts as if it has its own coating. The “micro contrast” is about adjacency; it’s like a wet drum scan vs a dry. Light areas affect the dark areas with a kind of falloff or overflow. Leica lens is so well made that this effect is minimised and therefore produces good dynamics particularly in the shadows. This is micro contrast. They are also about 20% sharper than Nikon lenses (older ones). Note I’m talking about film shooting but the principle is the same for digital
Dont know about Leica look, but honestly I spotted all 5 before you revealed the answer. I use a sony a7iii. But I would like to know what the sony pictures look like with adapted leica lenses. Better? It is a matter of taste.
Great video! Im a Leica shooter myself, and picked out all the Leica shots :). Peter Kare said that the leica M lenses produce a faster falloff than what the aperture normally would produce. And I think there is more highlights in your leica shots than the Sony ones. Specially on your wife's face, when on the Sony, the face is more obvious in shade the Leica shot had more highlights (more light) in the same place. Even when the sun was in the same place in comparison to your wife. But both systems produce fantastic images for sure.
Don't have a Leica digital body (have vintage lenses) and I guessed 5 out of 5 (got lucky). I do have Sony and am not particularly thrilled with the SOOC images. I'd say they're more like 99% the same except for the lens flare shot. I also have Lumix and Canon, and find that I grab the S5 because of the layout, using manual vintage lenses. Character and 3D pop, IMHO, are caused be lens flaws. I think (guessing here) that the 3D pop is probably due to field curvature, which alters how the OOF areas render. If you look at some really, really old pics (80 to 100 years old), some lenses have such horrible field curvature that unexpected areas are in focus (i.e., far from the focal plane and with bokeh between the subject and alternate in focus area) giving the pictures a rather 3D look, almost like a special effect. Each time I see one of these pictures, I have a double-take because it's so unusual. When I put my first Leica vintage lens on an original A7S, I did experience that double-take... and that was with the camera in SLog2 (i.e., very flat and dull looking). So it wasn't color rendition but (guessing) a very subtle field curvature flaw that the subconscious mind picks up. With the modern, clinical lenses, those flaws are corrected. And as the saying goes, Canon does not have accurate colors compared to Sony, but those inaccuracies are what makes so many people like the Canon look. And of course, when we watch modern movies with their heavy grades, the colors are about a billion miles from being accurate (i.e., teal and orange, etc.). 😎
Really great video Dave! Not sure if my comment will be interesting but I'll share it anyway as I'm not classified as a photographer. I've never own a camera in my life (33 years old now) and I just bought my first camera last week. It was a second hand, Leica D-Lux typ 109. A very old one. Why did I get Leica as my first camera? Because I own a smartphone where the camera was "Tune" by Leica. Not sure how much Leica is involved in this though but that Leica Look were somewhat present in my photos that my phone took and I was able to guess all of your photos correct. I haven't tested my D Lux outside as of this writing. I'm still learning the basics of photography but I agree with your finding that it is Leica Look is a charecter, which is heavily personal preference and the Leica experience is being compact. I'm so drolling over on those Q1 or Q2 Leica camera. It is my dream to own one of them.
Micro-contrast is a real scientifically measurable quality in a lens, as for 3D Pop it has to do more with the way lenses transition their out of focus areas, some lenses have abrupt transitions while others are far more gradient, there also charts for this, but most manufacturers do not share these charts since most people do not care. MTF charts are published by every manufacturer though, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss and Leica do particularly good job with them. Micro-contrast colour is a sensor aspect, most modern cameras wont shoot very good micr-contrast colour, or in better terms, it wont have very good colour separation particularly in the reds, this has most likely to do with manufacturers cheaping out on the colour dyes that were used to make the colour filter array that sits ontop of the sensor.
I think the most impressive part of this whole thing for me is how intelligent and respectful everyone’s comments are. Compliment to Dave I would say for gathering such folks. For my two cents I would say that I was able to guess all five and I’ve concluded it’s the “pop”. And to me that is the unique rendering in the falloff. Looking at the edge of the in focus part of the subject was how I came to my conclusions. Having said that I agree that no “normal” person would ever tell the difference. I have stared at 1000s of photos from my Q2 and R5 and to me it’s real. I love those R5 colors equally though. Beautiful images, both of them.
This means so much to me. Thank you for pointing this out. I’m all about community and culture and I love seeing this kind of dialogue on my channel. If we’re not building something positive and life-giving, it’s not worth building.
I was able to get 5/5. The Leica images are slightly more contrasty with warmer brighter colors. There is a vignette that's distinguishable with that 35 lux and the highlights are more pronounced in the photos. The most obvious photo to see this in is photo number 2 imo where she is sitting on the grass infront of the wall of foliage. I agree it's very hard to see the difference but it is there if you look. However, to me it's only noticeable side by side. If you took one photo away and showed me separately each photo, I most likely wouldn't be able to tell!
When I looked at the image pairs in your video, I analyzed the images for color, contrast, shadow detail, and resolution. I preferred the Sony images more than the Leica.
I am not surprised because I shoot with the following lenses: Leica Nikon Zeiss Pentax Fuji Canon Olympus Mamiya All produce great images and I see no significant differences between the images made by my Leica lenses verses all my other lenses.
Spot on Dave, it's not better. It has a vintage look (sometimes or in certain circumstances). It is an experience - that's it. Tactile, heritage. The rangefinder presence probably does something to our way of approaching a motive and ups the attentiveness to the subject in a different more contextual way rendering a different (better?) photographical artwork? I don't know about myself - I just love it. Looking at it, the intuitive handling, the fact that Queen Elisabeth II and renowned photographers chose this for their snapshots or reportage work, which later was considered the finest artwork. A year into my own M-quest, I simply feel that I came home. It's handy, neat, nimble, simplistic and primitive even - but quite simply an ergonomic tool for creating photographs. And it's different from anything else.. Different is not better, but thank God we have different in this day and age ;-)
I just got my Leica Q3 and lightroom doesn't show the "Camera Matching" profiles. The colors in-camera is way different than Adobe Color and Embedded profile. I prefer the In-camera colors.
For me, Sony has always had a "colder" color theory. I noticed the warmer Leica images immediately. Fun comparison, would love to see you add Canon & Nikon to this.
A couple of things come to mind. First, some M sense do impart "The Look". Try a 21 'Lux in soft light on your M11. Try some portraits with the current generation Noct at sunset. Next, some M lenses seem a bit more flat and dull. To me the 35 'Lux is a flat dull lens. Just me. Most other rave over the 35 'Lux. My mind is not made up over the 50 'Lux. The 75 'Cron is OK. The 90 'Cron can be magic. Lastly after using Photoshop for nearly 35 years I can usually extract "The Look" from more shots than I deserve. Part of the fun of photography… the process; the journey.
@@davidherring I watched your Yosemite walk-about. I'm a sucker for the Valley. I lived just above the valley spring and summer 1969 (in the village of Foresta off the Tioga Pass Road). A magical time as the park was recovering from the most intense winter in recorded history. We were shooting with Nikon F cameras at that time.
I got 5/5 correct, been a Leica user since 2010 with the Leica M8.2, recently just stopped using Leica, but been wanting to go back because of the M10-R, I kinda don’t like how mainstream Leica is now with the Q, like everyone has it, but Leica needs to do what they gotta do to survive.
Hey there, I just watched your comparison between the Leica and Sony cameras, and I wanted to share a thought from my own experience. It’s awesome that you’re diving into the colour differences, but I reckon using Lightroom might not give the most accurate picture. You know, Lightroom often adds its own colours and can really change the original feel. I’ve found that the camera does a great deal, but post-production is where the real magic happens. Maybe trying out a more neutral tool for comparing could give us an even better insight into what these cameras are capable of. Just my two cents, mate. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Devon Cooper
you defined micro contrast at 11:04, where some lenses have a glow and some are more defined: micro contrast is the how the adjacent tones are differentiated- it is a kind of sharpness, edge definition, we used to talk about certain developers having 'accutance" or an edge sharpening effect- this is how I understand micro-contrast. It is also responsible for the 3D pop feeling. And it is different from overall contrast- for example the 28 cron asph has low overall contrast but good micro contrast. its is sharp, but not harsh tonally. Flat even. Most of the older Leica glass, the 50 pre-asph Lux, the 35 cron asph v4? were kinda flat, but sharp lenses. All the newer designs are much more modern, sharp, and I think have lost that what I would call Leica look which was soft tonally but excellent micro contrast. If you think of old Nat Geo photogs on Kodachrome 25, that was a soft painterly look, all Leica for the most part. So I guess it depends what era you are talking about for Leica "look".
1. This is a great video, thank you. 2. I'm a Leica shooter and a total Leica fanboy. 3. I'm not emotional when it comes to the "Leica Look" because I think that it's mostly BS. Sure, color science is a thing and different camera sensors do in fact produce slightly different results - but the emphasis is on "slightly" and these differences are basically irrelevant because what little differences there are far outweighed by even the most basic editing steps in any raw converter. Tony Northrup has made great videos about this. 4. If there is such a thing as a "Leica Look" it will be mostly attributable to optics. Although I as a super-fanboy am convinced that Leica only produces S-tier lenses (😉) there are vast differences as to how they render, between Leica's different systems and also somewhat within the different systems, so I think there isn't such a thing as *the* (as in one single) Leica Look... 5. ...BUT I was able to correctly identify every single one of the Leica's pictures in your comparison (the one with the flares was indeed obvious, shot No. 4 was the hardest imho). The 35 Summilux imho has noticeably more vignetting - which I assumed since M lenses on average aren't as "technically perfect" (or as you put it: "clinical") as many modern, high-end mirrorless camera's lenses in general and especially Leica's SL lenses. So, in this comparison there indeed was an ever so slight difference, with the Leica equipment producing slightly less "perfect" (but a little more charming) images. 6. I think that if you had tested a different, more equivalent pair of setups against each other, like the Sony a7R V and an SL2 with a pair of equivalent lenses (maybe the 24-70-f/2.8s for both systems), I wouldn't have been able to tell which one was which.
Thanks for sharing all of that! I too am a Leica fanboy and plan to continuing shooting the M system into the sunset. I think what you said in #4 really drives it home - there's no such thing as THE look. It's just every lens has A look... but that's true across many other systems too.
The color and depth I always see tends to be in skin tones. I can really pick out where the skin tones are ever so slightly pink. That's the best I can do in differentiating. Love the idea here and think it's totally valid!
I too have the 35 'Lux (on my M11)... Though challenging to examine with the given time and YT video compression, I called Leica 4 out of 5 times correct. If those watching this video have not yet shot with a Leica M, they're missing out on a very satisfying tactile and compact kit experience.
I guess you nailed it spot on with your words. Every true professional here on YT said it many times: There is no real photo image quality difference between camera brands nowadays. Even all the camera companies know that fact. In my opinion that's the reason why they shifted in marketing strategy the last 5 years and push more on video features, AI stuff and emphasizing what kind of screen each camera has. And because modern lenses get even more clinical, a lot of people add vintage lenses and/or film into their kits. There is no right or wrong, since everybodys preference / taste is different. As you perfectly underlined I also got into Leica because of the experience + the build quality, since I'm a sucker for good craftmanship. I don't care, if the a brand is luxuries or not, but Leica offers something, which other brands don't. Imagine Fujifilm would offer something like a manuell full frame M system - by the power of market competition Leica would be forced to rethink those prices :D But that won't happen in the next 10 years :')
Agree! It really comes down to preference in the experience nowadays. I just love the experience of shooting Leica. I don’t love my Sony right now, but I use to. I’ve just become much more focused on other things than snappy autofocus and AI haha
I have no explanation, but I guessed each one correctly. I own a Sony and my buddy has a Leica…. And you can always tell which photo is the Leica. This video was spot on.
I picked the first three images correctly, quickly. The fourth and fifth were too close to call, within the time provided. I used an older-version iPad Pro 12.9”. My color Leica camera is an M10 Mark Nuthin’, which is may well have its own look, different from the M10-R. As I see it, the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has its own “look,” which seems independent of camera sensor or film. Back in early 2018, I tested my Summilux on pre-owned and demonstrator M9 and M Type 240 cameras, during multiple visits, before I decided to buy the lens, which was pre-owned. Then, I was allowed to test it on a new, just-available M10. (The waiting list had just been fulfilled, more than a year after introduction, leaving two new M10 cameras available.) Each generation of Leica camera has its own look, when I shot the Summilux on it. My just-delivered Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar, on an M10, renders another completely different look. I agree that the Leica look is not “better.” It is simply an aesthetic choice. And, of course, much of the character differences, among the lenses, will diminish, as they are stopped-down. Well-done!
I was 5/5 on the FLE. I used to own the FLE and loved it. But is it worth it, IDK. The Karbe era lenses are technically quite good for how small they are but are very much not clinical. Personally I prefer the even older stuff. Also Voigtlander and the Chinese have made really excellent M mount lenses of late.
I don't have a A7RV (don't have a Leica) I was able to pick out the leica images 5/5 mainly because of the vignetting and deeper blacks. I do agree that neither look is better, for example if I'm trying to take images with more pastel-y tones I wouldn't want to use my m mount lenses because they do have deeper blacks and a bit more contrast where as my GM is way more flat. In terms of sharpness I really don't think there is a difference though!
As a Leica owner I think the biggest giveaway is the look of the bokeh. It’s a lot busier in the highlights (people call it like. Nervous look?) but it also adds texture to the photo. Personally at this point I think all cameras can take a very similar photo whether it’s an older SLR with a 35 1.4 or the Sony with a GM lens. I think what you end up paying for is that little bit of character and the feeling of using a premium camera built with metal and the unique shooting experience with you can only get on a range finder system
5 out of 5 right. Have the M11. Sold all my Sony gear. Why - too complicated to use, too big/heavy and image color. Wish I could be specific. Sort of a combination of separation and warmth. Warmth not in terms of Kelvin, but a kind of soft creaminess combined with an apparent sharpness. I completely agree with the concept of character. You are absolutely right... I love going out and shooting with the M11. And because I love shooting with the camera, I believe my images are better. Just really like the character of the images. BTW, just came across your channel. Like you, I live in the Bay Area. Glad to find a fellow M shooting close by. Keep up the good work.
Of course Leica photography has a look, as does Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc. I''m now 76 years old, and I remember an article in 'Creative Camera' magazine discussing this feature in the various camera makers. Nikon had that true grit look as did Canon, whereas Minolta, as favoured by Sarah Moon had a different, almost large format tonality which suited her style of photography. Mostly now though, in these days of computer designed lenses, the differences between lenses is small, mostly the differences are now about sensors and the computational programming surrounding that. In film days, the medium was a constant and it was much easier to find a difference in lens performance as it was the only thing that could make a difference, when comparing cameras, as long as the film was held flat. Most press pros in the 70's and eighties used Nikon, but then Canon developed the EOS autofocs system and that was all that was used from then on in. Some fashion photographers (ie Sarah Moon using Minolta) used different cameras, 35mm wasn't really a player in those days, Leica was no different, being always a niche and it hasn't changed today. Rollei and Hasselblad ruled the roost in pro photography. When Bailey used 35mm it was with a Pentax, did anyone critique his shots fo not having a 'Leica' look? The Leica always found users among the art photography crowd, Henri cartier-Bresson, Tony Ray-Jones et al, being a street photographers dream camera with it's discreet compactness and, it's great lenses. Not sure if I would like one, but I admire them for producing such a camera and some wonderful lenses. People get hung up though around gear. I mean, did Elliot Erwitt obsess about the fact that he was shooting with a Canon F1N and not a Leica? It's not the camera or the lens that make a great picture, it's the photographer.
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate your line: "In film days, the medium was a constant and it was much easier to find a difference in lens performance as it was the only thing that could make a difference, when comparing cameras, as long as the film was held flat." This is a really important thing to note, because film is film no matter the camera it's in and you certainly could experiences lens subtly across various systems. We can't really do this today, because a sensor in a camera plays a major role in the final image. If there was a singular sensor manufacturer with a shared computational process in each digital camera, then we could actually see the role of the lenses better.
From my tiny iPad screen it’s fairly visible the contrast is different. But not in the same magnitude in price. I own Leica, m43 and canon ff. I think the major selling pt of rangefinder is similar to m43… size and weight of full kit. How much one is willing to pay for less weight is personal. But there’s a good reason why my canon stays home most of the time. The lenses are way bigger and heavier for same fov.
“Clinical” is a good word to describe the difference I’ve hear that word used quite a few times. I’m not a Leica user but the argument everyone makes against Leica M cameras-that they’re over priced and do much less for a far higher price-seems to have within it vindication for the use of Leicas. If all these amazing well known and famous photographers go to Leica M cameras for street and candid work despite having access to and even using many other systems when doing different types of photography it is clearly not just bias. I think it’s that random addition of character that varies from photo to photo, like the light in the shot with the sun in the background in the video. It’s not that it can’t be done in post with other cameras but it’s that it’s in the photo out of the camera so there’s elements that are dictated by the instrument. I might be wrong but that just the main difference there’s seems to be to me.
I had 5 out of 5…but to be honest, I own an M10-R. There’s a lot of difference between the line-ups of Leica lenses and cameras. Not only between M and SL or S lenses, but also between Summilux, Summicron and e.g. Elmarit lenses. Simply said, if you want the sharpest, more clinical image like a Sony R camera with a GM lens, take a Summicron. Esp. the APO-Summicrons. For that beautiful focus fall-off that is in my view typical Leica, take a Summilux or even a Noctilux and use it wide open or 1 stop down at most. Any vintage lens has a special character, mostly due to optical limitations. I’m a professional fashion/beauty photographer and I’ve used most modern systems like Nikon Z, Sony, Fuji (GF)X and Leica S and SL. In the end there’s not a lot of difference and in post you can reduce it even further. What stands out for me and why I use Leica most (and even exclusively for personal work) is the handling of the camera and the process of image creation. If you want an expensive point-and-shoot that takes a technically perfect image no matter where you aim it at, take a Sony (or a modern Nikon or Canon or a Leica Q or SL…). If you take joy in the process of creation and don’t mind working to create that perfect image, take an M or an S.
Hi Dave and g'day from Australia. Great vid! I'm typing this before I look at any of the comments before they 'may' change my mind. Out of the 'pick which one is a Leica image' I got 5/5 right. I think the way I could tell there was just a bit more warmth in the colours (is that a quick way to describe the 'Leica look' in a nutshell?). I'm a graphic designer by trade so maybe I have an eye for picking colours? I just bought myself a 2nd hand Q2 and looking forward to getting back into photography (I majored in photography/vid at Uni)
@@davidherringalso in the first sample shot example the way to tell is the vignetting and if you look at the fence in the background the Sony shot looks distorted vs the Leica shot looking more straight.
I picked correctly and there is truth to feeling you get when you shoot the Leica. I just did a shoot with my M11 with the 50 Lux and my R5 and the 50 1.2 and you can see a slight difference. Great job!
Cool video. Guessing the pics I managed 5 out of 5 to my surprise, though I preferred the Sony on pic 3. I found the Leica images to look very similar to the Sony for sure, but whatever is in focus simply seemed to stick out more. My eyes were drawn to a more specific portion of the image in the Leica shots, where I was more likely to wander with the Sony. That's how I could tell which was which. I guess that's the 3D pop portion of the "Leica look" coming into play? Either way, neat comparison. (For reference, I shoot as a hobby/collector and have cameras in most systems from 1" Nikon 1 to my A7Siii. No real bias towards one system or another.)
Thanks for sharing! I think the “no bias” approach is wise. It’s all just tools for creating, and culturally we have to stop thinking we need XYZ to create. We just need will power and confidence.
Got 4 of 5 and felt confident about the 4 I got, not so much on the 1. I have the exact two cameras you used also lol. Leica is an experience and telling the difference is like you said, just for photographers who even care to. CHARACTER and shooting experience are it for me. Leica all the way!
I think mictocontrast is the rendering that creates more differences in color shades and black to white. It gives the illusion of depth better because of how our vision works. Some lenses are better at it and you need a camera capable of showing it in the picture.
Here is my problem straight RAWs mean nothing its like contact printing a B&W on a grade 0 paper.... All RAW images need work. I'll like to see the images processed properly. I'd bet they would still be different at the end of the day.@@davidherring
Thank you! Then this makes a lot of sense. Personally, I shoot with A7IV and recently picked up Q2 and to me the biggest difference has been the amount of editing I need to do to the photos. Where the Q2 photos are great almost straight out of the camera, the Sony images are flat and "boring". But I've noticed I also shoot differently with the Q2, so that could be it too. Great video!@@davidherring
Hmm, I was able to spot the Leica images without any problem - TBH - I was a bit surprised, given the impact of YT compression etc. - but it was like night and day. Not really sure what it is in scientific terms, maybe micro-contrast, whatever that is, has something to do with it, but I suspect other factors, lens imperfections etc. play a part. I think that there is also a Zeiss look too, not really sure what that is either - but I can recognise it when it is there. Not sure how you can describe an emotional reaction in scientific terms - it's kind of like you are more in the real space viewing the image rather than looking at a photograph - if that makes any sense at all. Thanks for the video, really interesting - and though provoking, much appreciated!
I’ve won awards in professional only entry competitions with Nikon, Fujifilm and Leica. I’ve shot Leica M film and digital, Nikon film and digital, Canon film, Olympus digital and Fujifilm digital medium format. Each and every one took excellent images when I got my part of the process equally correct. Why do I shoot M now? I don’t really work as a photographer much now. Therefore all the client focused aspects of my equipment choices aren’t relevant. So I can shoot what I like. And I like M. Is there a look? Well if there is, it’s the glass. The old cameras shot the same film stock as every other 35mm and the colour came from the film. Best colour science out of camera to me is Fujifilm. Leica lenses are fantastic but getting fantastically expensive nowadays.
Micro contrast makes more sense from a film developing perspective. I notice a big difference in the fine detail contrast depending on which developer I use.
@@davidherring I think the modern lenses designed for digital are so sharp and clear they almost have a clinical quality to them. All the stuff Netflix has been putting out looks hella fake to me. It's too sharp!
I'd say the low (8) element lenses have a softer look compared to a high (14) element lenses. The low element lenses will pass more light through giving fine contrast rendering providing the sensor can pick it up. As for the sensor they are all bayer but perhaps Leica sensors have a slightly different colour filter (more transparent) compared to other bayer sensors. That and also debayering process unique to that sensor/brand. A good test would be to swap lenses and check the sensors behaviour. I'm content with my Foveon sensor, it gives real colours and is a king of micro contrast. 😊
Photography is a meditation, a Zen journey. Leicas take us deeper in that journey because they demand more attention. We ignore the world and focus deeper to capture special moments. The emotional connections to Leica as soon as we hold the cameras and lenses. The metal construction is substantial. Each piece feels like a finely crafted instrument. It should be clear that building Leicas requires artistry, dexterity, and tradition. These qualities are evident in the end product we hold in our hands. Nikon, Canon, Sony, and the like, make capable equipment, but they do not stir our pleasure centers in the same way. They are more utilitarian than fun. Leica is not without fault. Its turnaround time for servicing and quality control problems must be urgently resolved.
So in summary, it's the physical characteristics and technical experience that differentiate it, but the actual pictures (which we use cameras to take) are secondary?
I own both a Sony A7r4 and the Leica M11. You nailed it in this video. I prefer to shoot the Leica, but sometimes the Sony is best. So, I keep both systems. Called 4 out of 5 correctly in the comparisons, BTW.
There is Big Differens in color if you compared a jpeg from the camera VS Open a RAW File in lightroom VS Capture one. The all 3 will look completely Different. So you should Have compared it to JPEG from the Leica with the raw files opened and saved in lightroom or Capture one then you would have seen if there really is a big difference or not.. :) Great video!
@@davidherring Did you try match a Jpeg (straight out of camera) to a raw file get? or did you Compare the ( straight out of cameraJ) JPEG to Capture one and Lightroom? whats your thoughts if you have Tested it? Keep up the good WORK! 👍
I have the 50 Lux, and I'd say results are similar but the 50 Lux and 50 GM just seem to have more texture... but still very similar. In fact, I'd say that the 50 GM 1.2 is Sony's most "leica like" lens.
You have misunderstood. The Leica look is not the photograph made by Leica gear, but the look on the face of the buyer after checking their bank balance after purchasing a body and a couple lenses.
As both a Leica and Fujifilm shooter I can say without hesitation that you can tell the difference in the raw files. All lenses are not equal. The one thing that has always separated Leica from the rest are their lenses. Even when I use them on my Fujifilm X-Pro3 I can tell the difference between those lenses adapted to the X Mount compared to native lenses are spectacular. Ever photo you should I could tell immediately which was from the M10-R and which was from the Sony. The Sony files looked flat and without character whereas the Leica shots were not flat, had pop, and had character. That said, you can tinker enough with most raw files to make any photo look like any other photo especially if you’re using Lightroom, PhotoShop, or Capture One. Whether you call it the Leica look or not there is something different about how Leica digital M cameras render especially with pared with the right Leica M lenses or even those from Voigtlander. But like anything having to do with art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder or in this case in the eye of the Leica look. 😂
Dude... we can't tell on YT. Agree with your general point as a Leica owner (Q2). It is the camera design, ergos, etc. which make it great. You hit it on the head. If we want to throw shade at the Q2, start with sucky auto-focus... But the blade shutter makes it wonderful. And then there is the lens...
Completely agree with the conclusions. Recently did a "test drive" (that's how they call it) of the M10P with the 35mm f2.0. Needless to say it was probably the shooting session I enjoyed the most. The feeling with the camera was crazy. Nothing like it.
Wow, the Leica look is real. The 3d pop, the colours, the contrast and as you said the character that it produces. Does it come primarily from the lens or does the body made a large difference too?
The camera body is $5000 minimum before you add lenses. I have a Screwmount Leica (ancient 1949) stuff. Takes great photos SLOWLY. The entire thing is built like a tank. Love it. I cost me $700 in total 10 years ago. If ALL you are going to shoot is manual and one lens it can be affordable if that is your workflow. It’s all about choices. If you are an artist, the image is the defining factor
I had wrong on the second and last one. The one with flare was a nobrainer! I shoot Leica M10 and that as very little to do with the minal result, it has to do with the way to capture the photo. That's the most unique part of the M-series compared to anything else! The raw-files feels overhyped, but the handling, that's what I pay for! If I want the best possible RAW-file I would probably buy a GFX and the new 55mm f1.7 :)
I am a Sony RX1 User and I spotted the leica in all 5 examples, except the last shot. IMO the leica got "juicier" colors and the Focus/out of focus transition is more interesting. I bought the RX1 for exactly the reasons you mentioned about why you shoot with your Leica.
I guessed right most of the pictures but I’m a canon shooter. That Leica lens has higher contrast but is creamier- that is contradictory. But they managed to do it that way. I think I can get a similar look with that lens on another brand. Why so many Leica users have overly strong curves adjustments? Hard to see what’s there in the high and lowlights. Thanks for a very interesting video 👍😀
My experience with the Leica Look is a subtle yet perception of depth in Leica images (I was able to pick all the Leica pics, woohoo, I win). In my own experience, I feel like editing raw from Leica, Sony and Fuji, I get to my desired image sooner with Leica images.
Thats exactly my experience and, along with just loving using M's, is a big reason I sold all my Fuji and most of my Sony kit. Leica RAW files out of my M10-P and M8 are just about right on import and a few tweaks in the basic panel in LRC has them where I'm happy with them, Sony files seem to need much more adjustment. I've have kept an A9, just for times when I do need to hit moving targets, but mostly even that gets shot with adapted vintage Zuiko glass now. Small size is everything to me and AF is mostly not something I need.
The Leica look is probably the look in our faces when we pretend our Leica images are "so superior to anything else" 😏. Jokes aside, It's about the shooting experience not the "look". The lenses do have some unique character vs other ones like the GM Sony that have more of a "clinical" look. In the end there, there is a place for both and the beauty is that everybody is free to shoot whatever gets them to the result and shooting experience they like. Cheers!
I own an M10, Q3, SL2S, Sony A7RV and I’ve owned a Sony A1 for three years…First off, I got all the images correct that were Leica. I agree with everything you said and what sold it to me was the character, color and how the camera and lens combo handles the roll off and highlights. Leica is not better but it gives you a unique look straight out the camera and so much more of an experience that is hard to replicate while holding a modern Sony, Canon or Nikon. Great video!
My only experience with Leica is my recent purchase of what is already considered obsolete by the Leica crowd and it's the original Q. While I have a myriad of other cameras at my disposal, I take the Q with me everywhere and it's an absolute joy to shoot. I think you nailed it when you said it's the experience because while you can get the same or better elsewhere, these cameras just have character built into them and are just fun to shoot with.
I got all of them right and to me it wasn’t hard to choose. Yes, the differences were minor, but as a Sony shooter, the one color I don’t like how Sony renders is green. So that was a dead giveaway in every shot. Because I always place with the HSL to get my grass the shade of green I want. But also, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus in the Leica has a less “modern” render. But that’s a lens thing to me and not so much the camera or sensors. Newer lenses have less of those unique characteristics as older lenses did. New lenses pair with new sensors are extremely sharp and that’s not always a good thing.
I don't really know what the Leica look is but I love the results I get from my Leica. There is something special about its output before I get anywhere near the software. Not just saying this to be contrary but I could clearly see on your first example the difference between the Leica and the Sony. I was wrong with the 2nd example though. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for keeping it 💯. I'd like to see a comparison of these 2 vs a d750 & a 5d3 with their "nicest" 35s. So many people are caught up in kit instead of ideas & process.
Agree. I am a Leica and Nikon shooter. I have created a selectable shooting profile (Nikon calls it Picture Control) in all of my Nikon bodies which boots saturation (max) and contrast (slight boost), as well as leaving all of the cameras about .7 stops down (because the Nikons tend to overexpose, at least for me they do). If I could adjust the black level, I would make the blacks a little darker too. With all of these steps I end up fairly close to the Leica shots, which helps when they all meet up in Lightroom.
Going to throw my 2¢ in here as a guy who's shot Leica for about 15 years now (along with other cameras). "The Leica Look" is such an ambiguous thing that's thrown around and everyone has their own opinion on what that is. In reality, Leica's look has changed several times over the years as their lens designs have evolved, with the Mandler era lenses having much lower contrast and a lot of residual spherical aberrations (glow) when shot wide open, but still maintaining reasonably high sharpness. The Karbe era lenses have much higher contrast and are much better corrected and have a more abrupt contrast and focus falloff after the plane of focus. Micro-Contrast I've always thought was the contrast in fine details as apposed to global contrast of an image. Current Leica lenses are very good in this way but Zeiss has excelled at this since the 80's, which is why those old Contax lenses still shine when adapted to digital. Zeiss has had really good lens coatings for a long time and really only Nikon is at the same level, which is why Leica's not really playing in the same league when it comes to flare control. In the digital world, Leica's colour science has changed drastically between cameras (very frustrating to me), with each camera having it's own interpretation of colour. I can instantly spot M9 or M8 photos in my library compared to M240 or Nikon or Sony, but between the last three, it's not as obvious. So what is the "Leica Look"? It varies drastically depending on your lens and body combination, there really is no one unified look and people who say there is are probably fooling themselves a little.
Thank you for sharing all of that. I agree - and that was the point of my video... that ultimately (outside of an M8/M9), it's really just user experience and there's nothing too magical about the camera/lenses other than HOW we use them.
Can literally tell the difference and get 5 correct out of 5, being a Sony user myself and used Q2 for a while, I think what’s attracted me and my clients about Leica, or say the “contrast” is really that in the darker part of the photo, Leica tends to keep it a lot darker while maintaining the details and the depth of colour contrasts. However to my own taste I think I actually prefer sony’s rendering of the brighter parts. That being said, in 2023, that’s all just saying that, whether you want to spend a huge amount of money extra on Leica, or you wanna spend 2 more minutes per photo in Lightroom.
I dont own a sony or a Leica, yet i could see the difference. Without color grading Sony footage always differ (in a bad way mostly), especially when human skin tones are in the shot you can see the sony footage by searching for a greenish/unhealthy look in the faces
I recall reading somewhere that leicas sensors have a particular coating that helps with smoothening color rendition and focus falloff. There is a tangible difference even if you match up the colors. Sonys just lack that pleasing organic feel that company’s like Leica and Hasselblads are able to produce. Sony makes great spec sheets, but it’s takes extra work to get the images to not feel sterile. I’m speaking as someone who has shot Sony for years and also owned a Leica SL. No real comparison
Picked all except flowers. But. Somehow you’re reflecting my thoughts and inclinations perfectly. I’ve gone back to my A7Riv still carry my Q2. My older Leica have the perfect leica look, I believe, but the modern Leica seem to be coming back to the pack. The Sony with my current favourite lens is virtually the same size as the Q2. It’s just Q2 is better at low light, otherwise I’d be thinking sell. I may be getting the Nex out.
Picked the leica every shot. Did you notice the difference in compression it's almost like the Leica is slightly wider or sony narrower than advertised in that the background seems pushed further away on the lux? The transition from light to shadows on the skins is softer on the lux.
I guessed all the photos accurately. Here's the two things that I could detect: 1) The main subject in the Leica images seemed to pop out from the background just a touch more in the shots against the hedge (aka the way the foreground subject's edges are "drawn" vis-a-vis the background); 2) The Leica files were a touch more magenta (which is a dead giveaway). But they're incredibly close. So much so that it won't be the image quality that people notice, it will be the quality of the image - and by that I mean: is the subject matter arresting because of the subject matter, the lighting, the composition, etc? Those are the things that matter. (Even today's APS-C cameras are more than good enough for a majority of subjects, frankly.) Personally, I find Fujifilm's X-Series cameras produce images with a unique character, too, some of which comes down to the X-Trans sensor and their unique color science.
If I am not mistaken, the Leica and the Sony share the same/similar sensor. Remember, even RAW files will carry aesthetic decisions from the company that developed them.
As the Q2 owner I guessed 5/5 😂 For me the difference is clear even watching it on 6” mobile, but I agree with you - Sony is probably a more reasonable purchase.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that we were able to identify which photo was taken with the Leica in all 5 cases is IRREFUTABLE proof that it has a unique look. Whether we can replicate or describe it is another matter, and the fact that they look “similar” doesn’t mean that Leica’s inherent particularity doesn’t exist. The ability to identify them in a blind test is the evidence.
Thanks for sharing!
Old school ex photojournist perspective: The reson we caried a Leica back in the day around the neck with the 28mm always ready was mainly about the quiet function and dependability. The photo "look" was only an esoteric art value that was far down the list of reasons you wanted that camera in really bad situations.
Thanks for sharing!
I believe that the ‘Leica Look’ is influenced by two important factors. Firstly, the camera lenses. Leica optics have their own characteristics, which are clearly visible in the image. This is a crucial element when creating specific look on a movie by the dop. It’s common to use Leica lenses in filmmaking to achieve a softer look, a specific bokeh, but with a lot of contrast to bring out the subject, the famous 3D Pop, which is more pronounced with certain lenses than others. The 35mm 1.4 lens is definitely part of this. However, I don’t think the camera itself and its sensor play a significant role in achieving the Leica Look. It could be interesting to conduct a test by swapping lenses between different camera bodies. On the other hand, using a Leica M is not the same as using a camera like the R5 or an A7. And since the tool is fundamentally different, it’s employed in a different manner to capture distinct images, and that’s what sets it apart.
I agree with everything you said.
I agree with everything you said
Micro contrast
M mount lenses(especially wides) tend to not behave as well corner to on anything but an M body, do to the extremely thin sensor stack and micro lenses.
Thanks for the comment and for sharing!
Also something I noticed and I may be wrong but it felt like a lot of the Leica shots had dark vignette which could be added post as well?
Leica tends to vignette more than others. Nothing in this video was done in post.
The Leica look is all about the way you look when you wear a Leica on your neck.
💯
Lol
Hey David. I’ve been a Sony shooter for years, and just got my Leica. I definitely picked the correct one. I’ve been thinking heavily on this topic that past few weeks whether it’s in my head as clever marketing or if it’s something real. The contrast, warmth, and bokeh stand out. But I think the Leica opts to in some way to color and skew toward bokeh in a way that Sony doesn’t. Like that’s its character; skew toward warmth, bokeh, and an insane dynamic range. Staring at Leica photos for weeks, it made it somewhat easy for me to pick out in your video. But to agree in a way, a lot of the look can be washed out quickly with presets and color grading. It’s definitely something out of camera that needs less editing, so my theory is the Leica Look just comes out nearly raw for everyone to see and the Look is just out there more often. If an image is edited and color graded as usual, then it really becomes hard to tell it’s a Leica.
No it’s not marketing, Leica is an incredible experience and makes beautiful images full of character. You’ll love it.
congrats. Which M model and which lense did you get?
Thank you for sharing great information. Do you use Lightroom to process those Leica files?
Yep!
I see a little bit of extra subject isolation and 3D pop but MOSTLY it was in the nature of the blur in the back ground that made me shoot correctly. It's got a pleasing painterly look to it.... almost like a medium format film camera... like the back ground isn't a photo but a charcoal drawing.
Thanks for sharing!
Wow I loved this what an honest and well done topic. Too many times we get caught up in what is "better" and instead of appreciating all the options and different ways for image creation.
Thanks for sharing!
I really appreciate this video. It's always seemed so strange to me how alluring Leica and Leica lenses are, while no one ever quantifies or objectively analyzes what's going on.
I don't even own a Leica, as much as I've always wanted one. Mostly because I'm too drawn to medium format. Just the other day though I got into another frenzied Leica-hole shopping for an M6 TTL and Summilux I couldn't afford. One of the blog/reviews I was reading was reviewing a (film) body without mentioning the lens, and looking at the photos I literally, more than I had in a long time, thought "wow that Leica pop/look is serious". At the end it mentioned the lens, which was some $300 3rd party lens I'd never even heard of. I have never had a Leica or Leica lens, and just because I want one so much in the future I found myself rationalizing it and convincing myself of how I made the mistake.
I'm wondering more about the psychology around this phenomenon, but I still don't feel convinced the "look" isn't real or more than character (which seems silly). I shoot film only, so my constant data logging of Leica/Zeiss looks are found in a world of lenses filled with character by default and camera "sensors" mostly being just the same film stock.
I think a more comprehensive test would be really interesting. Same lenses adapted to the same body, indoors with controlled lighting, outdoor portraits, different lenses and DOF etc to really feel sure one way or another. When I come across a compelling image I typically stare for more than 3 seconds to take it in as well. I don't own a Leica and I find myself coping, so I assume that even rational Leica shooters will write you off. I suspect you're mostly spot on, but I hope not. All of my lenses are vintage, high quality and have character. I need to keep buying better gear, not improving my craft!! F*** you!
Thanks for sharing!
Interesting. I instinctively got four of the five. The other one was the flair shot, I was uncertain on that one. But once I "knew" I feel I can see the same clues in the none flaired areas. It's hard to quantify but it's something to do with the transition as you approach the highlights , ❤
Thanks for sharing!
It's more so the softer transition between the focused and out of focus areas. That's what gives it the 3D pop. The fewer the elements in fewer groups helps sustain this look and feel.
Thnx for inspiring us to do a video like yours in future. As a leica shooter I could spot all the leica photos in the comparison. It is easy and the way I see it is the following things: 1. Vignetting 2. Center focus is always brighter than the background 3. High details but not sharp (the contrast is higher to make it more detailed but the boundary between bright and dark is not abrupt). Point 1 and 2 is always consistent and somehow it really looks like there is a spotlight illuminating only the subject against a dark background. No other lenses could do this.
But stepping aside, I feel that you need to be specific about the specific Leica lenses you used to describe the look. In your case M lenses; In production: Lux asph Vs APO ASPH.
Then you have all the vintage M stuff out of production. If you talk about the leica look as described by the three points I said, the vintage M ones and Lux asph have it. Apo asph M don’t. Nor does Q or SL or other leica line up. It is that simple.
I agree colour should be left out of the description regarding the leica look: it doesn’t really play a role and you could still recognise a leica in monochrome photos.
Will do a shout out to you when I join the discussion on YT with some samples from my side.
Thanks for sharing! Fan of your channel, and I don’t disagree with anything you’ve shared here. The point I’m making is that the perceived “Leica Look,” a better and unique look to many, is really not too far from other systems and is found more character than the elusive microcontrast or 3D pop, which remain universally agreed upon and undefined.
@@davidherring for sure. That’s why the vintage stuff is highly sought after because they dont have something similar from other system. Like the steel rim 35 with the crazy glow that leica failed to replicate exactly in their reissue. Love to see more videos from you. Maybe we can try a collab zoom for some image comparison or review also in future.
Dave, have you done any shooting with vintage lenses? I think that's where you get even more of the Leica look. I have a 50mm Lux type 2 from 1968 (my dad's) and the look from that lens has that Leica glow and crazy bokeh wide open. Probably similar to the steel rim re-issue.
I haven't but I'd love to shoot some vintage lenses sometime!
The “Leica look” exists in medical trials. We call it “the placebo effect”
No… it comes from Leica users because it’s something you have to experience to understand it
LOL
1. The placebo effect is real, 2. Studies are fine, but the effect still does depend on the individual patient and his or her situation. And the look of the images on the photographer.
Lol
Undoubtedly Leica isn’t for YOU. This is fine of course-not everyone is worthy of Leica; nothing to feel guilty of, my friend.
What a great video. In common with most of your audience I do not have a Leica but fascinated with the enthusiasm of the users, and watch a lot of videos. I was lucky enough recently to be lent a Leica M6 for a couple of weeks. A serious shock to the system from a Fuji XT1. Really enjoyed the quality of the product and the Leica experience. One day perhaps a digital version but I am too impatient to go the film route. I look forward to following your channel.
Thank you!
thanks for keeping it real and being one of the few content creators that actually do an A/B comparison between Leica and other brands. Too many times other Leica channels only focus on unsubstantiated claims of how the camera makes them feel, instead of focusing on the real images which are output by the camera.
Thank you! I always try to keep it real.
I’m not a Leica owner, unfortunately. I’m just a poor dive instructor in Thailand. But I’m a huge photography and camera nerd. A few years back, when I deeply looked into Leica and carefully looked at 100s of photos online I was able to almost 100% determine if a photo was shot with a Leica or another system. The Leica look surely is real. Thank you for a very interesting video. Looking forward to the next one. Greetings, Dominic
Thanks for the comment, Dominic!
i'm not a Leica shooter. i even never touch Leica, and never really heard about "Leica Look". i was a Sony shooter tho. but i can easily identified which one is the Leica in all the 5 samples. the first thing i noticed is how crisp Leica images are.. it's like you can see the individual grass, and understand it shape. in Sony images the grass looks like it just bland together into one green scene. others thing that i noticed from Leica images are the contrast, the vignatte, and the 3d pop. yeah may be "Leica 3d pop" is a real thing.
Maybe so. Thanks for sharing!
I am a Sony shooter who has a very old Leica X1 (bought used) and I got 4 of 5 correct. Your point is well taken there are very subtle differences between the two. I think the jpg is where Leica shines. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for sharing!
I totally agree with you. I own Leica Q, SL2-s, M240 and previously owned an M10. I came from Sony, Canon and Fuji. There is color differences between sensors of course, but other than that, I think you can produce almost the same results using any camera. The thing that makes Leica is special is workflow and design of their cameras.
The Leica look was more prominent when lenses wasn't as good as they are today. 15 years ago the camera landscape was different, expensive Canon/Nikon lenses was still not as good as Leica lenses but today, Sigma lenses are as good as any of the higher end professional lenses. I think there's a lot of trying to justify the purchase of Leicas that's going on, especially on forums online. It's ridiculous. Buy what you like, the most important thing is that you want to pick your camera up, it's as simple as that.
For sure! Like I shared in the video, we’re beyond the point where specs matter. I think it’s 99% about experience, and shooting with whatever inspires you.
I've been using the Leica M from film to digital since the early 90s . I'm also using the Sony A7 series and the Fujifilm GFX. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages . At the end of the day, I keep going back to my M mainly due to portability and the character of the images. To me, they have a film look and need fewer editing to produce that film image quality that I prefer. And the images are not as clinical as the others. It could be due to the vintage lenses which I have been using since those days ie Mandler designed lenses. I've also given the Hasselblad digital a go but it's too perfect for my taste. Perhaps, I'm just old school
Thanks for sharing!
I got my Leica M9 because of the experience, not the look, the CCD sensor does render differently to CMSO though. I love the results and using the camera is so pleasurable. Picked out all 5 correctly, and for me, they just had a bit more character.
All about the experience!
The 35 lux is my favorite lens, the shallow look with a 35mm is refreshing and shocking at times. I agree with your observations and thoughts. I just see the vignette on the lux first, but as you noted the grass gives it away with a more 3d look. The only thing I see is her sitting on the grass shot. Her face and torso glow more (but that could be the angle) but her jeans and knee/shin show more contrast compared with the Sony shot. The foliage on the left and the grass both seem to have more separation.
Mine too! I love the 35mm focal length, and it’s hard to beat a summilux. Leica definitely has deeper blacks and more contrast.
I shot film for 20 yrs with M6 and Nikon. Essentially the Leica lens acts as if it has its own coating. The “micro contrast” is about adjacency; it’s like a wet drum scan vs a dry. Light areas affect the dark areas with a kind of falloff or overflow. Leica lens is so well made that this effect is minimised and therefore produces good dynamics particularly in the shadows. This is micro contrast. They are also about 20% sharper than Nikon lenses (older ones). Note I’m talking about film shooting but the principle is the same for digital
Thanks for sharing!
Dont know about Leica look, but honestly I spotted all 5 before you revealed the answer. I use a sony a7iii. But I would like to know what the sony pictures look like with adapted leica lenses. Better? It is a matter of taste.
I have an earlier video where I shoot the 50 Summicron on my Sony. It's linked in this video.
Great video! Im a Leica shooter myself, and picked out all the Leica shots :).
Peter Kare said that the leica M lenses produce a faster falloff than what the aperture normally would produce. And I think there is more highlights in your leica shots than the Sony ones. Specially on your wife's face, when on the Sony, the face is more obvious in shade the Leica shot had more highlights (more light) in the same place. Even when the sun was in the same place in comparison to your wife. But both systems produce fantastic images for sure.
Thanks for the kind words and for your input!
Don't have a Leica digital body (have vintage lenses) and I guessed 5 out of 5 (got lucky). I do have Sony and am not particularly thrilled with the SOOC images. I'd say they're more like 99% the same except for the lens flare shot. I also have Lumix and Canon, and find that I grab the S5 because of the layout, using manual vintage lenses. Character and 3D pop, IMHO, are caused be lens flaws. I think (guessing here) that the 3D pop is probably due to field curvature, which alters how the OOF areas render. If you look at some really, really old pics (80 to 100 years old), some lenses have such horrible field curvature that unexpected areas are in focus (i.e., far from the focal plane and with bokeh between the subject and alternate in focus area) giving the pictures a rather 3D look, almost like a special effect. Each time I see one of these pictures, I have a double-take because it's so unusual. When I put my first Leica vintage lens on an original A7S, I did experience that double-take... and that was with the camera in SLog2 (i.e., very flat and dull looking). So it wasn't color rendition but (guessing) a very subtle field curvature flaw that the subconscious mind picks up. With the modern, clinical lenses, those flaws are corrected. And as the saying goes, Canon does not have accurate colors compared to Sony, but those inaccuracies are what makes so many people like the Canon look. And of course, when we watch modern movies with their heavy grades, the colors are about a billion miles from being accurate (i.e., teal and orange, etc.). 😎
Thanks for the comment and for sharing! I totally see this as well!
Really great video Dave! Not sure if my comment will be interesting but I'll share it anyway as I'm not classified as a photographer.
I've never own a camera in my life (33 years old now) and I just bought my first camera last week. It was a second hand, Leica D-Lux typ 109. A very old one. Why did I get Leica as my first camera? Because I own a smartphone where the camera was "Tune" by Leica. Not sure how much Leica is involved in this though but that Leica Look were somewhat present in my photos that my phone took and I was able to guess all of your photos correct.
I haven't tested my D Lux outside as of this writing. I'm still learning the basics of photography but I agree with your finding that it is Leica Look is a charecter, which is heavily personal preference and the Leica experience is being compact. I'm so drolling over on those Q1 or Q2 Leica camera. It is my dream to own one of them.
Thanks so much for sharing! My friend has a DLUX and loves it. Leica definitely has a look.
Micro-contrast is a real scientifically measurable quality in a lens, as for 3D Pop it has to do more with the way lenses transition their out of focus areas, some lenses have abrupt transitions while others are far more gradient, there also charts for this, but most manufacturers do not share these charts since most people do not care.
MTF charts are published by every manufacturer though, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss and Leica do particularly good job with them.
Micro-contrast colour is a sensor aspect, most modern cameras wont shoot very good micr-contrast colour, or in better terms, it wont have very good colour separation particularly in the reds, this has most likely to do with manufacturers cheaping out on the colour dyes that were used to make the colour filter array that sits ontop of the sensor.
Thanks for sharing!
I think the most impressive part of this whole thing for me is how intelligent and respectful everyone’s comments are. Compliment to Dave I would say for gathering such folks.
For my two cents I would say that I was able to guess all five and I’ve concluded it’s the “pop”. And to me that is the unique rendering in the falloff. Looking at the edge of the in focus part of the subject was how I came to my conclusions. Having said that I agree that no “normal” person would ever tell the difference. I have stared at 1000s of photos from my Q2 and R5 and to me it’s real. I love those R5 colors equally though. Beautiful images, both of them.
This means so much to me. Thank you for pointing this out. I’m all about community and culture and I love seeing this kind of dialogue on my channel. If we’re not building something positive and life-giving, it’s not worth building.
I was able to get 5/5. The Leica images are slightly more contrasty with warmer brighter colors. There is a vignette that's distinguishable with that 35 lux and the highlights are more pronounced in the photos. The most obvious photo to see this in is photo number 2 imo where she is sitting on the grass infront of the wall of foliage.
I agree it's very hard to see the difference but it is there if you look. However, to me it's only noticeable side by side. If you took one photo away and showed me separately each photo, I most likely wouldn't be able to tell!
For sure! Sometimes when I shoot both in a set or series and I see them all together in Lightroom, I can't easily tell which was which camera.
I totally agree with your comment and also had the 5/5.
When I looked at the image pairs in your video, I analyzed the images for color, contrast, shadow detail, and resolution. I preferred the Sony images more than the Leica.
I am not surprised because I shoot with the following lenses:
Leica
Nikon
Zeiss
Pentax
Fuji
Canon
Olympus
Mamiya
All produce great images and I see no significant differences between the images made by my Leica lenses verses all my other lenses.
Yeah the differences in systems isn’t night and day like many assume it is.
Spot on Dave, it's not better. It has a vintage look (sometimes or in certain circumstances). It is an experience - that's it. Tactile, heritage. The rangefinder presence probably does something to our way of approaching a motive and ups the attentiveness to the subject in a different more contextual way rendering a different (better?) photographical artwork? I don't know about myself - I just love it. Looking at it, the intuitive handling, the fact that Queen Elisabeth II and renowned photographers chose this for their snapshots or reportage work, which later was considered the finest artwork. A year into my own M-quest, I simply feel that I came home. It's handy, neat, nimble, simplistic and primitive even - but quite simply an ergonomic tool for creating photographs. And it's different from anything else.. Different is not better, but thank God we have different in this day and age ;-)
Thanks for sharing. I completely agree!
I just got my Leica Q3 and lightroom doesn't show the "Camera Matching" profiles. The colors in-camera is way different than Adobe Color and Embedded profile. I prefer the In-camera colors.
Adobe and Leica profiles are vastly different, for sure.
For me, Sony has always had a "colder" color theory. I noticed the warmer Leica images immediately.
Fun comparison, would love to see you add Canon & Nikon to this.
same - its the face in each I immediately noticed. Tho I think you can tinker all this in post and make it almost impossible to tell.
If I had a Canon or Nikon, I would! But I'm deep in Leica and Sony haha
A couple of things come to mind. First, some M sense do impart "The Look". Try a 21 'Lux in soft light on your M11. Try some portraits with the current generation Noct at sunset. Next, some M lenses seem a bit more flat and dull. To me the 35 'Lux is a flat dull lens. Just me. Most other rave over the 35 'Lux. My mind is not made up over the 50 'Lux. The 75 'Cron is OK. The 90 'Cron can be magic. Lastly after using Photoshop for nearly 35 years I can usually extract "The Look" from more shots than I deserve. Part of the fun of photography… the process; the journey.
Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherring I watched your Yosemite walk-about. I'm a sucker for the Valley. I lived just above the valley spring and summer 1969 (in the village of Foresta off the Tioga Pass Road). A magical time as the park was recovering from the most intense winter in recorded history. We were shooting with Nikon F cameras at that time.
I got 5/5 correct, been a Leica user since 2010 with the Leica M8.2, recently just stopped using Leica, but been wanting to go back because of the M10-R, I kinda don’t like how mainstream Leica is now with the Q, like everyone has it, but Leica needs to do what they gotta do to survive.
Yeah the Q is everywhere, but I feel the M is still a pretty small club.
Hey there,
I just watched your comparison between the Leica and Sony cameras, and I wanted to share a thought from my own experience. It’s awesome that you’re diving into the colour differences, but I reckon using Lightroom might not give the most accurate picture. You know, Lightroom often adds its own colours and can really change the original feel.
I’ve found that the camera does a great deal, but post-production is where the real magic happens. Maybe trying out a more neutral tool for comparing could give us an even better insight into what these cameras are capable of. Just my two cents, mate. Keep up the great work!
Cheers,
Devon Cooper
Thanks for the comment and for sharing!
Interesting. And good on you for highlighting how much the lens involved contributes to the character/look of a brand.
Thanks!
you defined micro contrast at 11:04, where some lenses have a glow and some are more defined: micro contrast is the how the adjacent tones are differentiated- it is a kind of sharpness, edge definition, we used to talk about certain developers having 'accutance" or an edge sharpening effect- this is how I understand micro-contrast. It is also responsible for the 3D pop feeling. And it is different from overall contrast- for example the 28 cron asph has low overall contrast but good micro contrast. its is sharp, but not harsh tonally. Flat even. Most of the older Leica glass, the 50 pre-asph Lux, the 35 cron asph v4? were kinda flat, but sharp lenses. All the newer designs are much more modern, sharp, and I think have lost that what I would call Leica look which was soft tonally but excellent micro contrast. If you think of old Nat Geo photogs on Kodachrome 25, that was a soft painterly look, all Leica for the most part. So I guess it depends what era you are talking about for Leica "look".
Thanks for sharing!
1. This is a great video, thank you.
2. I'm a Leica shooter and a total Leica fanboy.
3. I'm not emotional when it comes to the "Leica Look" because I think that it's mostly BS. Sure, color science is a thing and different camera sensors do in fact produce slightly different results - but the emphasis is on "slightly" and these differences are basically irrelevant because what little differences there are far outweighed by even the most basic editing steps in any raw converter. Tony Northrup has made great videos about this.
4. If there is such a thing as a "Leica Look" it will be mostly attributable to optics. Although I as a super-fanboy am convinced that Leica only produces S-tier lenses (😉) there are vast differences as to how they render, between Leica's different systems and also somewhat within the different systems, so I think there isn't such a thing as *the* (as in one single) Leica Look...
5. ...BUT I was able to correctly identify every single one of the Leica's pictures in your comparison (the one with the flares was indeed obvious, shot No. 4 was the hardest imho). The 35 Summilux imho has noticeably more vignetting - which I assumed since M lenses on average aren't as "technically perfect" (or as you put it: "clinical") as many modern, high-end mirrorless camera's lenses in general and especially Leica's SL lenses. So, in this comparison there indeed was an ever so slight difference, with the Leica equipment producing slightly less "perfect" (but a little more charming) images.
6. I think that if you had tested a different, more equivalent pair of setups against each other, like the Sony a7R V and an SL2 with a pair of equivalent lenses (maybe the 24-70-f/2.8s for both systems), I wouldn't have been able to tell which one was which.
Thanks for sharing all of that! I too am a Leica fanboy and plan to continuing shooting the M system into the sunset. I think what you said in #4 really drives it home - there's no such thing as THE look. It's just every lens has A look... but that's true across many other systems too.
The color and depth I always see tends to be in skin tones. I can really pick out where the skin tones are ever so slightly pink. That's the best I can do in differentiating. Love the idea here and think it's totally valid!
Thanks Mark! I think Sony has smoother tones and grades better, but Leica has character and I love that!
The "Cine lens manual" has a great section on lens character and talks specifically about micro contrast if anyone is interested in further reading.
Thanks for sharing!
I too have the 35 'Lux (on my M11)... Though challenging to examine with the given time and YT video compression, I called Leica 4 out of 5 times correct. If those watching this video have not yet shot with a Leica M, they're missing out on a very satisfying tactile and compact kit experience.
The experience is everything!
I guess you nailed it spot on with your words. Every true professional here on YT said it many times: There is no real photo image quality difference between camera brands nowadays. Even all the camera companies know that fact. In my opinion that's the reason why they shifted in marketing strategy the last 5 years and push more on video features, AI stuff and emphasizing what kind of screen each camera has. And because modern lenses get even more clinical, a lot of people add vintage lenses and/or film into their kits. There is no right or wrong, since everybodys preference / taste is different.
As you perfectly underlined I also got into Leica because of the experience + the build quality, since I'm a sucker for good craftmanship. I don't care, if the a brand is luxuries or not, but Leica offers something, which other brands don't.
Imagine Fujifilm would offer something like a manuell full frame M system - by the power of market competition Leica would be forced to rethink those prices :D
But that won't happen in the next 10 years :')
Agree! It really comes down to preference in the experience nowadays. I just love the experience of shooting Leica. I don’t love my Sony right now, but I use to. I’ve just become much more focused on other things than snappy autofocus and AI haha
I have no explanation, but I guessed each one correctly. I own a Sony and my buddy has a Leica…. And you can always tell which photo is the Leica. This video was spot on.
Thanks for sharing!
I picked the first three images correctly, quickly. The fourth and fifth were too close to call, within the time provided. I used an older-version iPad Pro 12.9”. My color Leica camera is an M10 Mark Nuthin’, which is may well have its own look, different from the M10-R. As I see it, the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has its own “look,” which seems independent of camera sensor or film. Back in early 2018, I tested my Summilux on pre-owned and demonstrator M9 and M Type 240 cameras, during multiple visits, before I decided to buy the lens, which was pre-owned. Then, I was allowed to test it on a new, just-available M10. (The waiting list had just been fulfilled, more than a year after introduction, leaving two new M10 cameras available.) Each generation of Leica camera has its own look, when I shot the Summilux on it. My just-delivered Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar, on an M10, renders another completely different look.
I agree that the Leica look is not “better.” It is simply an aesthetic choice. And, of course, much of the character differences, among the lenses, will diminish, as they are stopped-down.
Well-done!
Thanks for sharing!
I was 5/5 on the FLE. I used to own the FLE and loved it. But is it worth it, IDK. The Karbe era lenses are technically quite good for how small they are but are very much not clinical. Personally I prefer the even older stuff. Also Voigtlander and the Chinese have made really excellent M mount lenses of late.
Thanks for sharing!
I don't have a A7RV (don't have a Leica) I was able to pick out the leica images 5/5 mainly because of the vignetting and deeper blacks. I do agree that neither look is better, for example if I'm trying to take images with more pastel-y tones I wouldn't want to use my m mount lenses because they do have deeper blacks and a bit more contrast where as my GM is way more flat. In terms of sharpness I really don't think there is a difference though!
Definitely no practical difference in sharpness that I can see. But yes, Leica is known for those deep blacks.
Thank you for your thoughtful explanation and keeping it real!
Thank you! Appreciate the comment.
As a Leica owner I think the biggest giveaway is the look of the bokeh. It’s a lot busier in the highlights (people call it like. Nervous look?) but it also adds texture to the photo. Personally at this point I think all cameras can take a very similar photo whether it’s an older SLR with a 35 1.4 or the Sony with a GM lens. I think what you end up paying for is that little bit of character and the feeling of using a premium camera built with metal and the unique shooting experience with you can only get on a range finder system
For me it’s definitely the experience. It’s something I just love!
5 out of 5 right. Have the M11. Sold all my Sony gear. Why - too complicated to use, too big/heavy and image color. Wish I could be specific. Sort of a combination of separation and warmth. Warmth not in terms of Kelvin, but a kind of soft creaminess combined with an apparent sharpness. I completely agree with the concept of character. You are absolutely right... I love going out and shooting with the M11. And because I love shooting with the camera, I believe my images are better. Just really like the character of the images.
BTW, just came across your channel. Like you, I live in the Bay Area. Glad to find a fellow M shooting close by. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the comment! Hit me up on IG sometime. A lot of cool meetups to shoot around the bay!
Of course Leica photography has a look, as does Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc. I''m now 76 years old, and I remember an article in 'Creative Camera' magazine discussing this feature in the various camera makers. Nikon had that true grit look as did Canon, whereas Minolta, as favoured by Sarah Moon had a different, almost large format tonality which suited her style of photography. Mostly now though, in these days of computer designed lenses, the differences between lenses is small, mostly the differences are now about sensors and the computational programming surrounding that.
In film days, the medium was a constant and it was much easier to find a difference in lens performance as it was the only thing that could make a difference, when comparing cameras, as long as the film was held flat.
Most press pros in the 70's and eighties used Nikon, but then Canon developed the EOS autofocs system and that was all that was used from then on in. Some fashion photographers (ie Sarah Moon using Minolta) used different cameras, 35mm wasn't really a player in those days, Leica was no different, being always a niche and it hasn't changed today. Rollei and Hasselblad ruled the roost in pro photography. When Bailey used 35mm it was with a Pentax, did anyone critique his shots fo not having a 'Leica' look?
The Leica always found users among the art photography crowd, Henri cartier-Bresson, Tony Ray-Jones et al, being a street photographers dream camera with it's discreet compactness and, it's great lenses.
Not sure if I would like one, but I admire them for producing such a camera and some wonderful lenses. People get hung up though around gear. I mean, did Elliot Erwitt obsess about the fact that he was shooting with a Canon F1N and not a Leica? It's not the camera or the lens that make a great picture, it's the photographer.
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate your line: "In film days, the medium was a constant and it was much easier to find a difference in lens performance as it was the only thing that could make a difference, when comparing cameras, as long as the film was held flat." This is a really important thing to note, because film is film no matter the camera it's in and you certainly could experiences lens subtly across various systems. We can't really do this today, because a sensor in a camera plays a major role in the final image. If there was a singular sensor manufacturer with a shared computational process in each digital camera, then we could actually see the role of the lenses better.
I agree. Regarding to the Minolta look, please mind they had a partnership with Leica for several years, with a considerable knowledge transfer.
From my tiny iPad screen it’s fairly visible the contrast is different. But not in the same magnitude in price. I own Leica, m43 and canon ff. I think the major selling pt of rangefinder is similar to m43… size and weight of full kit. How much one is willing to pay for less weight is personal. But there’s a good reason why my canon stays home most of the time. The lenses are way bigger and heavier for same fov.
Agreed! I prefer Lieca for many reasons, but one is the size and weight!
“Clinical” is a good word to describe the difference I’ve hear that word used quite a few times. I’m not a Leica user but the argument everyone makes against Leica M cameras-that they’re over priced and do much less for a far higher price-seems to have within it vindication for the use of Leicas. If all these amazing well known and famous photographers go to Leica M cameras for street and candid work despite having access to and even using many other systems when doing different types of photography it is clearly not just bias. I think it’s that random addition of character that varies from photo to photo, like the light in the shot with the sun in the background in the video. It’s not that it can’t be done in post with other cameras but it’s that it’s in the photo out of the camera so there’s elements that are dictated by the instrument. I might be wrong but that just the main difference there’s seems to be to me.
Yeah, that's probably the best word choice. Thanks for the comment!
I had 5 out of 5…but to be honest, I own an M10-R. There’s a lot of difference between the line-ups of Leica lenses and cameras. Not only between M and SL or S lenses, but also between Summilux, Summicron and e.g. Elmarit lenses. Simply said, if you want the sharpest, more clinical image like a Sony R camera with a GM lens, take a Summicron. Esp. the APO-Summicrons. For that beautiful focus fall-off that is in my view typical Leica, take a Summilux or even a Noctilux and use it wide open or 1 stop down at most. Any vintage lens has a special character, mostly due to optical limitations. I’m a professional fashion/beauty photographer and I’ve used most modern systems like Nikon Z, Sony, Fuji (GF)X and Leica S and SL. In the end there’s not a lot of difference and in post you can reduce it even further. What stands out for me and why I use Leica most (and even exclusively for personal work) is the handling of the camera and the process of image creation. If you want an expensive point-and-shoot that takes a technically perfect image no matter where you aim it at, take a Sony (or a modern Nikon or Canon or a Leica Q or SL…). If you take joy in the process of creation and don’t mind working to create that perfect image, take an M or an S.
100% agree. I shoot Leica M all the time because I love the experience. Thanks for your comment!
Hi Dave and g'day from Australia. Great vid! I'm typing this before I look at any of the comments before they 'may' change my mind. Out of the 'pick which one is a Leica image' I got 5/5 right. I think the way I could tell there was just a bit more warmth in the colours (is that a quick way to describe the 'Leica look' in a nutshell?). I'm a graphic designer by trade so maybe I have an eye for picking colours? I just bought myself a 2nd hand Q2 and looking forward to getting back into photography (I majored in photography/vid at Uni)
Thanks for sharing!
ruclips.net/video/ueVgsotHWqo/видео.html
I feel like this video at 5:03 perfectly sums up what we're seeing from the lens but in a technical way.
That was really interesting. Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherringalso in the first sample shot example the way to tell is the vignetting and if you look at the fence in the background the Sony shot looks distorted vs the Leica shot looking more straight.
Great video Dave! Isn't it because of those good early days ccd sensors?)) Leica M8, M9, SE....
Thanks so much! Yeah those sensors definitely had a unique look.
I picked correctly and there is truth to feeling you get when you shoot the Leica. I just did a shoot with my M11 with the 50 Lux and my R5 and the 50 1.2 and you can see a slight difference. Great job!
Thanks Dwayne! For sure there is a difference. I just think it’s character and not necessarily better/worse.
Cool video. Guessing the pics I managed 5 out of 5 to my surprise, though I preferred the Sony on pic 3. I found the Leica images to look very similar to the Sony for sure, but whatever is in focus simply seemed to stick out more. My eyes were drawn to a more specific portion of the image in the Leica shots, where I was more likely to wander with the Sony. That's how I could tell which was which. I guess that's the 3D pop portion of the "Leica look" coming into play? Either way, neat comparison. (For reference, I shoot as a hobby/collector and have cameras in most systems from 1" Nikon 1 to my A7Siii. No real bias towards one system or another.)
Thanks for sharing! I think the “no bias” approach is wise. It’s all just tools for creating, and culturally we have to stop thinking we need XYZ to create. We just need will power and confidence.
Got 4 of 5 and felt confident about the 4 I got, not so much on the 1. I have the exact two cameras you used also lol. Leica is an experience and telling the difference is like you said, just for photographers who even care to. CHARACTER and shooting experience are it for me. Leica all the way!
Heck yeah! Leica all the way!
I don't even have a Leica and I could tell which ones were Leica in 4 of 5 as well.
I think mictocontrast is the rendering that creates more differences in color shades and black to white. It gives the illusion of depth better because of how our vision works. Some lenses are better at it and you need a camera capable of showing it in the picture.
For sure! Thanks for sharing!
To clarify, where the images edited or raw files directly from the cameras?
These were raw, straight out of the camera.
Here is my problem straight RAWs mean nothing its like contact printing a B&W on a grade 0 paper.... All RAW images need work. I'll like to see the images processed properly. I'd bet they would still be different at the end of the day.@@davidherring
Thank you! Then this makes a lot of sense.
Personally, I shoot with A7IV and recently picked up Q2 and to me the biggest difference has been the amount of editing I need to do to the photos. Where the Q2 photos are great almost straight out of the camera, the Sony images are flat and "boring". But I've noticed I also shoot differently with the Q2, so that could be it too.
Great video!@@davidherring
Hmm, I was able to spot the Leica images without any problem - TBH - I was a bit surprised, given the impact of YT compression etc. - but it was like night and day. Not really sure what it is in scientific terms, maybe micro-contrast, whatever that is, has something to do with it, but I suspect other factors, lens imperfections etc. play a part.
I think that there is also a Zeiss look too, not really sure what that is either - but I can recognise it when it is there.
Not sure how you can describe an emotional reaction in scientific terms - it's kind of like you are more in the real space viewing the image rather than looking at a photograph - if that makes any sense at all.
Thanks for the video, really interesting - and though provoking, much appreciated!
Thanks for sharing! I define what you've described as character, and yes, Leica has a ton of character.
I’ve won awards in professional only entry competitions with Nikon, Fujifilm and Leica. I’ve shot Leica M film and digital, Nikon film and digital, Canon film, Olympus digital and Fujifilm digital medium format.
Each and every one took excellent images when I got my part of the process equally correct.
Why do I shoot M now? I don’t really work as a photographer much now. Therefore all the client focused aspects of my equipment choices aren’t relevant. So I can shoot what I like. And I like M.
Is there a look? Well if there is, it’s the glass. The old cameras shot the same film stock as every other 35mm and the colour came from the film.
Best colour science out of camera to me is Fujifilm.
Leica lenses are fantastic but getting fantastically expensive nowadays.
Thanks for sharing!
Micro contrast makes more sense from a film developing perspective. I notice a big difference in the fine detail contrast depending on which developer I use.
You do really see more of the lenses character on film than you do digitally.
@@davidherring I think the modern lenses designed for digital are so sharp and clear they almost have a clinical quality to them. All the stuff Netflix has been putting out looks hella fake to me. It's too sharp!
I'd say the low (8) element lenses have a softer look compared to a high (14) element lenses. The low element lenses will pass more light through giving fine contrast rendering providing the sensor can pick it up. As for the sensor they are all bayer but perhaps Leica sensors have a slightly different colour filter (more transparent) compared to other bayer sensors. That and also debayering process unique to that sensor/brand. A good test would be to swap lenses and check the sensors behaviour. I'm content with my Foveon sensor, it gives real colours and is a king of micro contrast. 😊
Thanks for sharing!
Photography is a meditation, a Zen journey. Leicas take us deeper in that journey because they demand more attention. We ignore the world and focus deeper to capture special moments. The emotional connections to Leica as soon as we hold the cameras and lenses. The metal construction is substantial. Each piece feels like a finely crafted instrument. It should be clear that building Leicas requires artistry, dexterity, and tradition. These qualities are evident in the end product we hold in our hands. Nikon, Canon, Sony, and the like, make capable equipment, but they do not stir our pleasure centers in the same way. They are more utilitarian than fun. Leica is not without fault. Its turnaround time for servicing and quality control problems must be urgently resolved.
Great way of looking at it. Thanks for sharing!
this is the most pretentious pile of drivel I've seen in a while. Just proves that Leica users are delusional
So in summary, it's the physical characteristics and technical experience that differentiate it, but the actual pictures (which we use cameras to take) are secondary?
I own both a Sony A7r4 and the Leica M11. You nailed it in this video. I prefer to shoot the Leica, but sometimes the Sony is best. So, I keep both systems. Called 4 out of 5 correctly in the comparisons, BTW.
Same!… for now haha
There is Big Differens in color if you compared a jpeg from the camera VS Open a RAW File in lightroom VS Capture one. The all 3 will look completely Different. So you should Have compared it to JPEG from the Leica with the raw files opened and saved in lightroom or Capture one then you would have seen if there really is a big difference or not.. :) Great video!
I'll check that out. Thanks for sharing!
@@davidherring Did you try match a Jpeg (straight out of camera) to a raw file get? or did you Compare the ( straight out of cameraJ) JPEG to Capture one and Lightroom? whats your thoughts if you have Tested it? Keep up the good WORK! 👍
Should try with the 50 Lux. I think at the end of the day, MF has just been more enjoyable. Rangefinder lenses are just fun to use.
I have the 50 Lux, and I'd say results are similar but the 50 Lux and 50 GM just seem to have more texture... but still very similar. In fact, I'd say that the 50 GM 1.2 is Sony's most "leica like" lens.
You have misunderstood. The Leica look is not the photograph made by Leica gear, but the look on the face of the buyer after checking their bank balance after purchasing a body and a couple lenses.
Lol
As both a Leica and Fujifilm shooter I can say without hesitation that you can tell the difference in the raw files. All lenses are not equal. The one thing that has always separated Leica from the rest are their lenses. Even when I use them on my Fujifilm X-Pro3 I can tell the difference between those lenses adapted to the X Mount compared to native lenses are spectacular.
Ever photo you should I could tell immediately which was from the M10-R and which was from the Sony. The Sony files looked flat and without character whereas the Leica shots were not flat, had pop, and had character. That said, you can tinker enough with most raw files to make any photo look like any other photo especially if you’re using Lightroom, PhotoShop, or Capture One.
Whether you call it the Leica look or not there is something different about how Leica digital M cameras render especially with pared with the right Leica M lenses or even those from Voigtlander. But like anything having to do with art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder or in this case in the eye of the Leica look. 😂
Thanks for sharing!
Dude... we can't tell on YT. Agree with your general point as a Leica owner (Q2). It is the camera design, ergos, etc. which make it great. You hit it on the head. If we want to throw shade at the Q2, start with sucky auto-focus... But the blade shutter makes it wonderful. And then there is the lens...
Thanks for the comment.
Completely agree with the conclusions.
Recently did a "test drive" (that's how they call it) of the M10P with the 35mm f2.0.
Needless to say it was probably the shooting session I enjoyed the most.
The feeling with the camera was crazy. Nothing like it.
Agreed! Nothing like it!
Wow, the Leica look is real. The 3d pop, the colours, the contrast and as you said the character that it produces.
Does it come primarily from the lens or does the body made a large difference too?
I think it's the combo, personally.
The camera body is $5000 minimum before you add lenses.
I have a Screwmount Leica (ancient 1949) stuff. Takes great photos SLOWLY. The entire thing is built like a tank. Love it. I cost me $700 in total 10 years ago.
If ALL you are going to shoot is manual and one lens it can be affordable if that is your workflow.
It’s all about choices. If you are an artist, the image is the defining factor
Thanks for the comment.
Your closing statement captured it perfectly - its the experience - kinda why I still listen to and buy vinyl.
Thanks! And same… if it’s a fav band or a very important record for me, I buy it on vinyl and prefer that experience!
I had wrong on the second and last one. The one with flare was a nobrainer! I shoot Leica M10 and that as very little to do with the minal result, it has to do with the way to capture the photo. That's the most unique part of the M-series compared to anything else! The raw-files feels overhyped, but the handling, that's what I pay for! If I want the best possible RAW-file I would probably buy a GFX and the new 55mm f1.7 :)
The M experience can't be beat! Thanks for the comment.
I am a Sony RX1 User and I spotted the leica in all 5 examples, except the last shot. IMO the leica got "juicier" colors and the Focus/out of focus transition is more interesting. I bought the RX1 for exactly the reasons you mentioned about why you shoot with your Leica.
Thanks for sharing!
I guessed right most of the pictures but I’m a canon shooter. That Leica lens has higher contrast but is creamier- that is contradictory. But they managed to do it that way.
I think I can get a similar look with that lens on another brand.
Why so many Leica users have overly strong curves adjustments? Hard to see what’s there in the high and lowlights.
Thanks for a very interesting video 👍😀
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for the comment!
My experience with the Leica Look is a subtle yet perception of depth in Leica images (I was able to pick all the Leica pics, woohoo, I win). In my own experience, I feel like editing raw from Leica, Sony and Fuji, I get to my desired image sooner with Leica images.
Congrats on winning! Yeah I agree, I do less style-tweaks on my Leica files.
Thats exactly my experience and, along with just loving using M's, is a big reason I sold all my Fuji and most of my Sony kit. Leica RAW files out of my M10-P and M8 are just about right on import and a few tweaks in the basic panel in LRC has them where I'm happy with them, Sony files seem to need much more adjustment. I've have kept an A9, just for times when I do need to hit moving targets, but mostly even that gets shot with adapted vintage Zuiko glass now. Small size is everything to me and AF is mostly not something I need.
The Leica look is probably the look in our faces when we pretend our Leica images are "so superior to anything else" 😏. Jokes aside, It's about the shooting experience not the "look". The lenses do have some unique character vs other ones like the GM Sony that have more of a "clinical" look. In the end there, there is a place for both and the beauty is that everybody is free to shoot whatever gets them to the result and shooting experience they like. Cheers!
So in the end even the Sony wins since you can also adapt vintage glass on it
Good words! Thanks for sharing!
I own an M10, Q3, SL2S, Sony A7RV and I’ve owned a Sony A1 for three years…First off, I got all the images correct that were Leica. I agree with everything you said and what sold it to me was the character, color and how the camera and lens combo handles the roll off and highlights. Leica is not better but it gives you a unique look straight out the camera and so much more of an experience that is hard to replicate while holding a modern Sony, Canon or Nikon. Great video!
Thanks for sharing! That's quite a kit you have!
Fascinating video... thank you!!
Thanks!
My only experience with Leica is my recent purchase of what is already considered obsolete by the Leica crowd and it's the original Q. While I have a myriad of other cameras at my disposal, I take the Q with me everywhere and it's an absolute joy to shoot. I think you nailed it when you said it's the experience because while you can get the same or better elsewhere, these cameras just have character built into them and are just fun to shoot with.
Dude the Q is awesome and I know amazing photographers that prefer to shoot the original Q. Those cameras are still very relevant!
@@davidherring Oh yeah i agree, the camera is AMAZING and love the shooting experience.
I got all of them right and to me it wasn’t hard to choose. Yes, the differences were minor, but as a Sony shooter, the one color I don’t like how Sony renders is green. So that was a dead giveaway in every shot. Because I always place with the HSL to get my grass the shade of green I want. But also, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus in the Leica has a less “modern” render. But that’s a lens thing to me and not so much the camera or sensors. Newer lenses have less of those unique characteristics as older lenses did. New lenses pair with new sensors are extremely sharp and that’s not always a good thing.
Thanks for sharing! Character > clinical all day.
love the video, agreed with everything you said . I did try to do this with my m11 and my a1 , couldn't tell the difference :)
Thank you!
I don't really know what the Leica look is but I love the results I get from my Leica. There is something special about its output before I get anywhere near the software. Not just saying this to be contrary but I could clearly see on your first example the difference between the Leica and the Sony. I was wrong with the 2nd example though. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for keeping it 💯. I'd like to see a comparison of these 2 vs a d750 & a 5d3 with their "nicest" 35s. So many people are caught up in kit instead of ideas & process.
Thanks for the comment!
Agree. I am a Leica and Nikon shooter. I have created a selectable shooting profile (Nikon calls it Picture Control) in all of my Nikon bodies which boots saturation (max) and contrast (slight boost), as well as leaving all of the cameras about .7 stops down (because the Nikons tend to overexpose, at least for me they do). If I could adjust the black level, I would make the blacks a little darker too. With all of these steps I end up fairly close to the Leica shots, which helps when they all meet up in Lightroom.
Going to throw my 2¢ in here as a guy who's shot Leica for about 15 years now (along with other cameras). "The Leica Look" is such an ambiguous thing that's thrown around and everyone has their own opinion on what that is. In reality, Leica's look has changed several times over the years as their lens designs have evolved, with the Mandler era lenses having much lower contrast and a lot of residual spherical aberrations (glow) when shot wide open, but still maintaining reasonably high sharpness. The Karbe era lenses have much higher contrast and are much better corrected and have a more abrupt contrast and focus falloff after the plane of focus. Micro-Contrast I've always thought was the contrast in fine details as apposed to global contrast of an image. Current Leica lenses are very good in this way but Zeiss has excelled at this since the 80's, which is why those old Contax lenses still shine when adapted to digital. Zeiss has had really good lens coatings for a long time and really only Nikon is at the same level, which is why Leica's not really playing in the same league when it comes to flare control.
In the digital world, Leica's colour science has changed drastically between cameras (very frustrating to me), with each camera having it's own interpretation of colour. I can instantly spot M9 or M8 photos in my library compared to M240 or Nikon or Sony, but between the last three, it's not as obvious.
So what is the "Leica Look"? It varies drastically depending on your lens and body combination, there really is no one unified look and people who say there is are probably fooling themselves a little.
Thank you for sharing all of that. I agree - and that was the point of my video... that ultimately (outside of an M8/M9), it's really just user experience and there's nothing too magical about the camera/lenses other than HOW we use them.
Can literally tell the difference and get 5 correct out of 5, being a Sony user myself and used Q2 for a while, I think what’s attracted me and my clients about Leica, or say the “contrast” is really that in the darker part of the photo, Leica tends to keep it a lot darker while maintaining the details and the depth of colour contrasts. However to my own taste I think I actually prefer sony’s rendering of the brighter parts. That being said, in 2023, that’s all just saying that, whether you want to spend a huge amount of money extra on Leica, or you wanna spend 2 more minutes per photo in Lightroom.
I dont own a sony or a Leica, yet i could see the difference. Without color grading Sony footage always differ (in a bad way mostly), especially when human skin tones are in the shot you can see the sony footage by searching for a greenish/unhealthy look in the faces
Thanks for sharing. Leica has deeper blacks and more contrast, for sure.
I recall reading somewhere that leicas sensors have a particular coating that helps with smoothening color rendition and focus falloff. There is a tangible difference even if you match up the colors. Sonys just lack that pleasing organic feel that company’s like Leica and Hasselblads are able to produce. Sony makes great spec sheets, but it’s takes extra work to get the images to not feel sterile. I’m speaking as someone who has shot Sony for years and also owned a Leica SL. No real comparison
Thanks for sharing!
Picked all except flowers. But. Somehow you’re reflecting my thoughts and inclinations perfectly. I’ve gone back to my A7Riv still carry my Q2. My older Leica have the perfect leica look, I believe, but the modern Leica seem to be coming back to the pack. The Sony with my current favourite lens is virtually the same size as the Q2. It’s just Q2 is better at low light, otherwise I’d be thinking sell. I may be getting the Nex out.
Thanks for sharing. I need to get some older Leica glass sometime!
@@davidherring all I have are older Leica lens. Manual.
@@davidherring oh. Forgot. I have used them in the Sony with an adapter
Picked the leica every shot. Did you notice the difference in compression it's almost like the Leica is slightly wider or sony narrower than advertised in that the background seems pushed further away on the lux? The transition from light to shadows on the skins is softer on the lux.
I didn’t notice a difference in compression, but that would be interesting given they’re both 35mm.
Maybe I missed it... what aperture did you use? Biggest difference should appear at f/1.4 to f/2
Edit: I understand you used f/1.4 for both lenses
Yep 1.4 for both!
I guessed all the photos accurately. Here's the two things that I could detect: 1) The main subject in the Leica images seemed to pop out from the background just a touch more in the shots against the hedge (aka the way the foreground subject's edges are "drawn" vis-a-vis the background); 2) The Leica files were a touch more magenta (which is a dead giveaway).
But they're incredibly close. So much so that it won't be the image quality that people notice, it will be the quality of the image - and by that I mean: is the subject matter arresting because of the subject matter, the lighting, the composition, etc? Those are the things that matter. (Even today's APS-C cameras are more than good enough for a majority of subjects, frankly.) Personally, I find Fujifilm's X-Series cameras produce images with a unique character, too, some of which comes down to the X-Trans sensor and their unique color science.
Thanks for sharing! How close they are is what I had set out to show here.
If I am not mistaken, the Leica and the Sony share the same/similar sensor. Remember, even RAW files will carry aesthetic decisions from the company that developed them.
That’s the rumor for the Leica M11, but not any prior sensor.
As the Q2 owner I guessed 5/5 😂 For me the difference is clear even watching it on 6” mobile, but I agree with you - Sony is probably a more reasonable purchase.
For sure.