-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Leica look (continued)?
- Thread starter Aquarius2014
- Start date
JaKing
Veteran Member
Shooting with a RF is different, but I had a number of reflex cameras before I bought my M2 with three lenses. After travelling around the world with the M2 kit, and for some years afterwards, I found that I far preferred the ergonomics and flexibility of an SLR.
I tried an M3 with three Summicron lenses in the 1990s, but it left me cold by then.
I found RF cameras to be restricting, and not in any kind of good way. I'm not into SM and bondage, either ... ;-) :-D .
I still own three SLRs and a 6x6 TLR (Rolleiflex 2.8f). However, I would not trade the flexibility and IQ of my two E-M1 cameras for any film camera, not even for the medium/large format cameras I used in my youth.
It is something that one needs to get out of one's system, I guess. Unfortunately, it's fora like this that put these ideas into one's system in the first place!
A constant barrage of dissatisfaction with something that works tremendously well for the purpose for which it was designed!
I tried an M3 with three Summicron lenses in the 1990s, but it left me cold by then.
I found RF cameras to be restricting, and not in any kind of good way. I'm not into SM and bondage, either ... ;-) :-D .
I still own three SLRs and a 6x6 TLR (Rolleiflex 2.8f). However, I would not trade the flexibility and IQ of my two E-M1 cameras for any film camera, not even for the medium/large format cameras I used in my youth.
It is something that one needs to get out of one's system, I guess. Unfortunately, it's fora like this that put these ideas into one's system in the first place!
A constant barrage of dissatisfaction with something that works tremendously well for the purpose for which it was designed!
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-15mm-f1-7-vs-olympus-17mm-f1-8.84305/page-3#post-978458
Some guy wrote the following on another forum:
Kind of surprising that the Leica look comes from an Olympus lens and not one of the "Leica" co-branded Panasonic lenses, but I guess we always knew they weren't real Leicas.
Some guy wrote the following on another forum:
If you just search in Google, you will find the answer!
Kind of surprising that the Leica look comes from an Olympus lens and not one of the "Leica" co-branded Panasonic lenses, but I guess we always knew they weren't real Leicas.
Last edited:
I fart to that!
How is it "Leica envy" to want to see believable statistical proof of a Leica look?
I know that I'm curious.
That wasn't directed to you, but to dmanthree, who I think took it as I intended (as he has owned Leica in the past). You will never get statistical proof of a leica look and I think most of the guys asking for this know that. So while I can't prove there is a Leica look, neither can you disprove that their isn't one.
Now THIS IS possibly very true.
The Leica look depends on aiming the camera at a Leica subject.
We have now 200 statements or so on this thread and in the original one. One of the biggest topics here...
BUT: Why don't we talk how to create a specific OLYMPUS, PANASONIC or also MFT look???
The question is not just rhethorical. In the early 1930s, the first Leicas inspired many photographers to create a new style. The Leica offers the technical background for this, by its lens and especially its size. Artists like Russian Alexander Rodchenko get inspired to create a complete new look. They never discussed how to emulate the look of former plate cameras!
"In 1927, Rodchenko gave up painting in order to completely immerse himself in the field of photography. A year later, he bought a Leica camera for himself, since it was easy to work with and its operations were faster. This camera facilitated him in viewing objects from various perspectives and odd positions. It also enabled him to capture unanticipated details of views."
http://www.famousphotographers.net/alexander-rodchenko
Same, as another example, with Andre Kertesz:
http://www.famousphotographers.net/andre-kertesz
And yes, these guys talked about gear, as well as American master Ansel Adams did, but in every case as a tool to boost a new look.
So, stop this discussion, go out and come back with new and great mFT pics!
M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT: Why don't we talk how to create a specific OLYMPUS, PANASONIC or also MFT look???
The question is not just rhethorical. In the early 1930s, the first Leicas inspired many photographers to create a new style. The Leica offers the technical background for this, by its lens and especially its size. Artists like Russian Alexander Rodchenko get inspired to create a complete new look. They never discussed how to emulate the look of former plate cameras!
"In 1927, Rodchenko gave up painting in order to completely immerse himself in the field of photography. A year later, he bought a Leica camera for himself, since it was easy to work with and its operations were faster. This camera facilitated him in viewing objects from various perspectives and odd positions. It also enabled him to capture unanticipated details of views."
http://www.famousphotographers.net/alexander-rodchenko
Same, as another example, with Andre Kertesz:
http://www.famousphotographers.net/andre-kertesz
And yes, these guys talked about gear, as well as American master Ansel Adams did, but in every case as a tool to boost a new look.
So, stop this discussion, go out and come back with new and great mFT pics!
M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HaoAndHui
Leading Member
I haven't done any scientific experiment, but the images from Panasonic keeps impressing me with more depth compared to the ones from I often saw more pop from the photos taken with early Panasonic cameras:
It seems to me that when M43 went to higher MPs from early 12MP sensor, there is some compromise made, more specifically, micro-contrast, which isn't something usually tested by major reviewing websites (so...), and they more focus on sharpness, high ISO score, etc.
--
Blog: .ninja
Flickr: flickr.com/photos/huiimy
Instagram: instagram.com/haozhe.xu
It seems to me that when M43 went to higher MPs from early 12MP sensor, there is some compromise made, more specifically, micro-contrast, which isn't something usually tested by major reviewing websites (so...), and they more focus on sharpness, high ISO score, etc.
--
Blog: .ninja
Flickr: flickr.com/photos/huiimy
Instagram: instagram.com/haozhe.xu
Last edited:
dmanthree
Forum Pro
Proof of any negative is impossible. That's a fact, so please...
For example, I can't prove that you've never skinned a cat alive, either.
...still waiting for the double-blind test...
>> The question is not just rhethorical. In the early 1930s, the first Leicas inspired many photographers to create a new style.
If you believe Leica's marketing department, yes. If you are familiar with the history of photography, no. I cite eg Lartigue - he shot what looks like a very modern style full of energy and things happening, but with a plate camera and flash.
If you believe Leica's marketing department, yes. If you are familiar with the history of photography, no. I cite eg Lartigue - he shot what looks like a very modern style full of energy and things happening, but with a plate camera and flash.
Right. Because it's not like electronics technology has improved at all recently. At an incredible pace. I mean if that had happened we'd all be carrying, I don't know, tiny networked super computers with high resolution screens. That also made coffee. Or even worked as phones...
Also: you can't prove a general tendency by cherrypicking examples. And, no, those two examples don't look they have any special degree of "pop".
Last edited:
Sorry to say, but I disagree. However, that's 80 years in the past... nothing to worry about.
My point is that we talk too much about gear and too less about creativity and art.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that we talk too much about gear and too less about creativity and art.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G
greg 123
Guest
Nice images. Your images would come out equally stunning with quality lenses of other brands at similar focal lengths. As you pointed out the photographer is more important to the image than the look of a specific brand of lens. One difference might be the mind set of the photographer when a particular brand of lens is used.
Last edited:
I think you should conduct the double blind. I don't see many clamoring for one, so unless you do it it probably won't happen.
Last edited:
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
if someone wants the "leica" look then i suggest buying Leica equipment, if after buying Leica equipment they don't get the leica look then 
Appropriate
petapixel.com
Why I Swapped My 'Pro' DSLR for the Cheapest One Available
My name is Ion Paciu, and I'm a photographer based in London. I recently purchased a new camera kit with a camera body and lenses. However, it wasn’t an
petapixel.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum