Time to Get Honest about the Leica Look

We hear about micro-contrast and 3D pop, but if we do an honest and practical comparison, what are the results? Can we debunk the Leica Look?

0:00 - Intro
0:51 - The Supposed Lieca Look Explained
4:17 - Samples
8:30 - My Takeaways
9:43 - The ACTUAL Leica Look
12:20 - Engineering Impacts Images
13:59 - The Leica Look Is Not...
15:18 - Closing

Me:

[vikingogenio]

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.

[jiandefretes]

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.

[joshh]

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?

[ronbell]

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.

[FotosyMas.]

The Leica look is all about the way you look when you wear a Leica on your neck.

[Seaglass]

The “Leica look” exists in medical trials. We call it “the placebo effect”

[askpauld]

Former Leica shooter for weddings. I feel like the gradient transitions are much smoother/cleaner.

[DevinSpagnola]

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!

[bobdamico]

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.

[FredRanger]

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!

[Vyzima]

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.

[pnw_md]

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.

[photo]

I feel like this video at 5:03 perfectly sums up what we're seeing from the lens but in a technical way.

[PhotoGearFun]

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.

[stevieraveon]

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.

[juancarlosguzman]

Thank you for sharing great information. Do you use Lightroom to process those Leica files?

[markusbolliger]

Agree with (almost) all your points! There is no question that Leica offers the best glass which money can buy on the market. But for what a price!! And in my experience the character of the rendering also largely depends on the lighting of a scene. May Canon, although much cheaper, produces very pleasing images with close-to-nature colours. With all opportunities we now have with AI the gap between a Leica file and a Canon file has become even narrower. But the gap in the price is still enormous!
All Leica cameras are overpriced. But the Leica marketing managers are clever: they successfully cultivate a myth. You don't buy a Leica with your head, but with your heart and/or your stomach. And for the user experience, as you say(wiht all it's drawbacks: no autofocus, no stabilisation - what also means you miss rewarding opportunities...).
My much cheaper Canon R6 MkII outperforms all Leica M cameras in almost every discipline. With Leica you probably get 3-5% better image quality or maybe "character" for 200-500% of the price of a Canon, Nikon or Sony - but can you see the difference in the end product, such as a print, in a blind test?

[tonypulido]

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.

[bobmcadams]

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.

[threeamigoshk]

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.