The Leica look

Swift wrote in post #11739711
The only difference I see is saturation, which you can do in Photoshop without having to download a whole new program.

I think you just figured out the Leica secret.

RDKirk wrote in post #11739665
Well, IMO, this is a Canon forum, so we all should know what "the Canon look" is...and anyone who doesn't already know "the Leica look" can't help even if given an example.

Leica have been making cameras for pretty long now so there's a few variations without even taking into account different film types (if we're even talking analouge).

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11739891
Leica have been making cameras for pretty long now so there's a few variations without even taking into account different film types (if we're even talking analouge).

Look again at post #6.

Swift wrote in post #11739711
The only difference I see is saturation, which you can do in Photoshop without having to download a whole new program.

kirkt wrote in post #11739764
I think you just figured out the Leica secret.

You know, that brings up an interesting topic -- of course different lenses are known for having more "pop" as in they deliver more of things like contrast and saturation, and you can say something similar about some sensors, like how the 5D Classic with its thin antialiasing filter is known to have a bit more out-of-the-camera "punch".

Now, those lenses delivered in the film days, and with digital we welcome an image that needs little post-processing, but the question is, in the digital age, especially in the Web age, how much of the final product will actually show a difference between a good quality well-processed photo from "standard" gear and one from "special" gear? Of course, a large print from a MF camera will stand out, but has anyone done some real analysis on whether an MF image or a Leica image can beat off all challengers when printed up to, say, 12x18 or 11x14 or such?

Yes, we have. No, they can't. A 6x7 film image can still hold its own in high detail at great enlargements of 30x40 and up (and I'm ignoring at this point people who just like the "film look" per se), but at smaller enlargements, there isn't a quantifiable difference.

That's why most portrait photographers have gone to 24x36mm digital. I held on to my own 6x7 cameras up to a year ago, but they're just not necessary anymore except for landscapes, in which there is no such thing as too much detail.

Leica still holds a bit of an edge for the reasons I mentioned earlier: Lenses with superior contrast and lack of mirror bounce vibration.

I know I have excellent details in 12x18 prints from down to my 30D images (8 MP) but going much beyond that I'd be wanting to be an MF goofball!

'Course B&W is another story when it comes to dynamic range with MF?LF images. Well, I'd explore that all, but maybe another day!

The mirror bounce thing is interesting. I try to take care to use mirror lock -- of course if I'm shooting hand-held in low light that's another matter, maybe it would make a real differene, although I typically don't expect tack sharp shots from that scenario!

This thread reminded me of a Leica owner who appeared (and then disappeared) a couple of years ago in the forums.

The main issue was, she LOVED herself for owning a Leica, but was a bit lacking in imagination when it came to taking pictures.

So the idea of "The Leica Look" is immediately assuming that spending a lot of money on a camera body will preempt something magical in the pictures said camera spits out.

Which goes full circle to any POTN member asking, "If I 'upgrade' from my Rebel to a 5DMkII, will I take better pictures?"

No....
IMHO, it's all about the light, and how one sees the light before pushing that little button on top.
Almost anyone can save enough cash to buy an expensive camera and still take terrible pictures.
And with, as Tony points out, the likelihood that most images will only end up on the web, or in some "digital photo frame", I can't see the point in spending so much more on a body which so few can use, unless you've more money than sense.
(For example, click on this amazing Leica shot: It's a road! Wow!!!, and to all POTN fans, guess the 'tog!)
Just my view on things...

Regards,
Simon

Heh! Simon, once in a while you pop up in my neck of the woods!

tonylong wrote in post #11740976
Heh! Simon, once in a while you pop up in my neck of the woods!

Sorry Tony, been too busy of late, what with flying to see Mum in the UK with Missus Skygod, then dealing with the upcoming sprouting of Skygod Jnr!!!
Oh, plus work!!!


Yep, I'm still here, doing some more paid-for shoots on top of the other businesses I'm involved in (which is great!) and thoroughly enjoying my 7D.

skygod44 wrote in post #11741050
Sorry Tony, been too busy of late, what with flying to see Mum in the UK with Missus Skygod, then dealing with the upcoming sprouting of Skygod Jnr!!!
Oh, plus work!!!


Yep, I'm still here, doing some more paid-for shoots on top of the other businesses I'm involved in (which is great!) and thoroughly enjoying my 7D.

Heh! Dude, from what we've seen of "Missus Skygod II", I'd totally grant you plenty of time off!

tonylong wrote in post #11741059
Heh! Dude, from what we've seen of "Missus Skygod II", I'd totally grant you plenty of time off!

Hahahahaha!
Thanks Tony...and if only she'd let me, I'd post one of her latest shots, but it's a "Look, I'm pregnant" photo, which will strictly stay OFF the internet.
And, if only you saw it, you'd agree - "Who needs a Leica!?!?!?!" when you've got a model like Missus S MkII!!!

From what I've seen, Leica lenses are actually more neutral in their color rendering than, say, Canon L or Zeiss lenses.

You should poke around in the 16-9 reviews look at whatever comparisons include a Leica lens.

skygod44 wrote in post #11740832
This thread reminded me of a Leica owner who appeared (and then disappeared) a couple of years ago in the forums.

The main issue was, she LOVED herself for owning a Leica, but was a bit lacking in imagination when it came to taking pictures.

So the idea of "The Leica Look" is immediately assuming that spending a lot of money on a camera body will preempt something magical in the pictures said camera spits out.

Which goes full circle to any POTN member asking, "If I 'upgrade' from my Rebel to a 5DMkII, will I take better pictures?"

No....
IMHO, it's all about the light, and how one sees the light before pushing that little button on top.
Almost anyone can save enough cash to buy an expensive camera and still take terrible pictures.

And with, as Tony points out, the likelihood that most images will only end up on the web, or in some "digital photo frame", I can't see the point in spending so much more on a body which so few can use, unless you've more money than sense.
(For example, click on this amazing Leica shot: It's a road! Wow!!!, and to all POTN fans, guess the 'tog!)
Just my view on things...

Regards,
Simon

I don't think this only applies to camera bodies. I think this applies to some of the canon L, zeiss lenses as well. The magical L rendering that people gawk over. God like 85L images. Haha. I agree that it's all about the light... And composition.

It used to be said that if you were shooting black and white, get a Leica and if shooting color, get a Contax. I don't know about Leica now but I do see images that offer a look in black and white which I really like and that were taken by Leica's. I cannot claim that for the color stuff I've seen.

When I bought my first Canon digital 5D, I had been a Nikon and Hasseblad film user. I looked for all the images I could find that were shot by pros using either Nikon or Canon and couldn't say why but I liked something about the Canon images better.

When I got my Hasseblad, I remember going into a local pro shop and they put up some 16x20 prints and asked me to tell which were the ones shot with a Hasseblad and which were I think from a 6x7 camera of another brand, all in black and white. I picked out all of the Hasseblad ones correctly.

But if I was to compare my images from the Hasseblad to my friends Rolli, I would have taken either camera and couldn't tell which was taken by which.

So B&W brings up another very interesting aspect, especially with MF and LF formats, and that's dynamic range that can be brought out in processing the film.

An interesting challenge would be for someone who was a master at digital B&W post-processing to take an image from say a 5D2 or 1Ds3 and use their skills in converting/processing an image of a scene identical to a capture from the bigger film camera (wider lens, same field of view, and a "sweet spot" aperture for maximum depth of field/sharpness).

Print them both at 16x20 -- how closely would you have to look to spot the MF/film shot? Assuming the digital processing was masterful and the film processing was up to the Ansel Adams standard, would the film "jump out" at you or would you need to ponder and gaze to to be able to distinguish between the two?