The Leica Look 🤨

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been very busy in the last couple of weeks but the show must go on and I am back with new videos. In today's video, I am addressing a topic that many people have talked about. The infamous Leica look that I've never really noticed, even though I've been shooting Leica cameras for almost a decade.

See you soon in the next one!

my video setup*:

some of my favorite film stocks*:

*Amazon Affiliate links. By using the links above I get a small kick back with no extra cost involved for you. You can support the channel by using the links. Thank you so much! 😊👌


👉 Settings for low light STREET PHOTOGRAPHY:

👉 I don't shoot from the hip, here is why:

👉 How to master manual focus:

👉 How I develop color negative film:

👉 How I develop color positive film:

👉 Scanning Negatives

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ReclusiveEagle]

There is also the factor of Leica being so expensive that in the 1900s only accomplished photographers were able to afford them. This skews the perspective of images taken with a Leica, because extremely skilled Photographers were using Leica. Verses Canon or Nikon, Fuji, Mamiya etc that had lower end offerings for the general public to purchase and use. Of course there is also the lens selection. Leica is one of the few companies that spare literally no expense in manufacturing glass that they determine to be perfect.

[gabvideo]

I don’t know myself if there really is a “Leica look” having used both a M4 and Leicaflex SL with Sumnicron/Elmarit lenses in the late 70s and various film stock but when I used a Pentax Spotmatic/ Tukumar lens combination with Kodachrome film in the early 70s I was blown away by the “look” of the resulting images. The contrast/colour/saturation had a wonderful “look” that no other combination of camera/lens/film has given me since then.

[bodythetan]

I was just thinking this morning how nice it would be to use Leica looks but apply them the raw image in post. And here we are, first video I clicked on :D Thanks Robin!

[oliverlison]

There is also the Zeiss pop. I am guessting this has a similar history.

[joseuribe]

any plans to come to Chicago? I always enjoy watching your videos. Just got myself a new black paint Leica MP with a Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 Nokton Classic SC

[davidgoold]

I'm not sure if I could spot a Leica image if presented with a pile of mixed photographs. But, having owned a couple of digital Leicas in the past, I would say that the combination of fast lenses with superior microcontrast does result in a very special character. When shooting colour JPEG, I found the colour science (which seemed to boost red, blue and yellow channels) also helped make attractive images with a distinctive 'pop'.

[GamachePhoto]

The Leica “Look” is mostly how I look when I’m out shooting with my Leica…haha just kidding! I agree with you that in early film days the Leica lens had the advantage and allowed for such a look or a pop, but nowadays several lenses allow for that wide open F1.2 experience, so not so much. The sensor or the Color science in the sensor is more responsible for the Leica look now, but then again post processing can negate that quickly. Let’s just go out shoot pictures with whatever camera/lens you want and enjoy it, for me it’s Leica M10-R and SL2. Great post Sir Robin.

[WhoIsSerafin]

There's the leica empty wallet look. But if someone gave you several different cameras and they printed out the photos from those about the only thing anyone could tell you is if they liked the photos. But I bet no could tell you what camera was used.

[Narsuitus]

I have compared the images produced by my Leica M6 with 35mm f/1.4 and 90mm f/2 lenses and my Nikon F2 with 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses. I have noticed no significant differences between the images.

[sebastiang]

Most think the Leica look is the look of the images produced from using Leica gear. My opinion is the Leica look is the look on your face after you check your account balance after buying Leica gear.

[Kevb]

I started with a X1 and that looked much more pleasing than I could get from my X100V, sold that and got a CL and then sold that for an M. I’m not sure it’s a look but you’ve definitely got a point about the way the images turn out and make you feel 👍

[ruialex]

I feel like you are absolutely right about the joy of using a camera influencing a photo, some cameras are much more advanced but not as joyful to use, I hope I get a leica one day I want to feel like what it’s like, a Fuji too, I currently own a Sony A7iv

[jdstrobist]

Very interesting video. 🧐I thoroughly enjoyed watching it.

I’ve never owned a Leica Camera, though looking at your beautiful images. I definitely do see some sort of “Leica Pop” 🤔 perhaps the Photographer & subjects have more to do with the overall aesthetics of the pictures than the camera and lens. I don’t really know? I have another Friend here in Australia and he swears by Leica lenses. It’s all over my head. I have to agree with your conclusion Robin since you own and use Leica Cameras & Lenses and have done so for years.

Thanks for sharing this informative video, not only educational but very entertaining too. 😎✌️

[depotmsa]

The leica look comes from Leitz Elmar 5cm f3.5. in 1937 , its where the foreground is sharp and the the backround has a 3d pop, the bokeh almost looks cateye shaped like the biotar design . and the the subject pops off the background they were trying to get the look of medium format on the smaller version 35 mm film, , carl zeiss also deigned lenses like the ultron 50 mm 1.8 to have a resolving power of 60 line pairs per milimeter and they used leaded glass and had a concave element to achieve the pop of the leica look with the help of computers, you can find great detail on the leica look in this book called eyes wide open

[tallaganda]

Good lenses have a look, Leica has some good lenses, as do many other brands these days. I’ve never used a Leica, but they seem to be very good in a small package which always helps.

[WHEELBIKER]

I can definitely recognize the " leica look” in images taken wide open on their fast lenses. The “3D” separation of subject from background is unlike anything I’ve seen. Some come close but I can almost always pick out the leica image.

[victorcarmelo]

Agree, it’s what we as individuals produce “is our look”. The Leica look or any other look is a myth. Thanks for sharing.

[joelek]

I feel like what people mean when they say the Leica look is linked to, as you said, the way of shooting. What they really mean is the "high quality rangefinder" look. At least, that's what it is to me: when I compare the photos from my rolleiflex and my leica m, they each have a very distinctive look and my images and compositions are very different

[j.f.]

There's also the Rollei look, the Hasselblad look. To me the "real" Leica look, was the combination of Leica lenses (notably the Summicrons) with Kodachrome film. That was indeed unique. But you can tell also that there is a difference in B&W. I remember the first roll I shot (Plus X) with my newly acquired M3 DS. It was a "wow". moment. I sold all my Minolta gear shortly afterwards. There was no such a thing as "the Leica look", just a unanimous recognition that Leica was in a league of its own (in 35mm that is).

[klarion]

I think it's about the smooth transition to defocus and the look of the out of focus area.. (not so much blur)

It's not limited to Leica.. for example, my 135 Sony STF has the Leica look.

However, my Pentax 77mm 1.8 might have a unique rendering, but doesn't have the Leica look because it has an abrupt transition to defocus and strong outlining on defocused objects.