What is it about Leica?

"Leica cameras" ?

You must not forget the lens which I feel adds more than half any specialness

The camera is of course nothing more at the end of the day than a box with a hole in. In this case, a very well built box but nevertheless a box.

The lenses are extremely good but that won't improve or alter your images other than in a technical sense of course.

For me, several factors are at play. The first is portability. I have lugged a pair of Nikon D3s bodies plus associated 2.8 glass around on long photo shoots for weeks on end in very hot places such as SE Asia. Yes you get great shots. No, it is not remotely fun doing it as the gear is heavy (my camera bag alone weighed about 17kg on more than one trip).

M cameras are small and M glass is small. The trade is no AF and no zooms or long teles. Of course with the arrival of the SL, you can mount your M glass on that and long teles if that is what you want from time to time and you have the budget.

The second important thing is simplicity. M cameras do not have the thousands of options you will find on a typical modern camera. They allow you to change shutter speed, aperture and what in the olden days would have been motordrive speed.

They do not have 20 programmable buttons, 5 autofocus modes, 50 frames per second, tracking focus, video ability and so on.

The absence of that makes for simple choices - sometimes one of which will be "can I even capture that with this camera" and sometimes you cannot.

For me the portability and simplicity are welcome and it is those qualities that mean I will take more images which means more practice and more practice is where the magic comes from whether it be guitar playing or taking photos or anything else.

Yes, this is a fine image and a good example. I found a few that are even better, and if I can find them again I will post them. I would consider a used M10, but it is still prohibitively expensive. At this point in my life I probably don't have enough disposable income to justify the purcahase.

J_Allen said:

Yes, this is a fine image and a good example. I found a few that are even better, and if I can find them again I will post them. I would consider a used M10, but it is still prohibitively expensive. At this point in my life I probably don't have enough disposable income to justify the purcahase.

Click to expand...

is it worth the price of 10 Sonys? Only when you look at the lifelike images compares to other cameras


--
Owner of photography and other business. Firm believer in Free Enterprise and being FREE from a 9-5 job.

Kiwisnap said:

The camera is of course nothing more at the end of the day than a box with a hole in. In this case, a very well built box but nevertheless a box.

The lenses are extremely good but that won't improve or alter your images other than in a technical sense of course.

For me, several factors are at play. The first is portability. I have lugged a pair of Nikon D3s bodies plus associated 2.8 glass around on long photo shoots for weeks on end in very hot places such as SE Asia. Yes you get great shots. No, it is not remotely fun doing it as the gear is heavy (my camera bag alone weighed about 17kg on more than one trip).

M cameras are small and M glass is small. The trade is no AF and no zooms or long teles. Of course with the arrival of the SL, you can mount your M glass on that and long teles if that is what you want from time to time and you have the budget.

The second important thing is simplicity. M cameras do not have the thousands of options you will find on a typical modern camera. They allow you to change shutter speed, aperture and what in the olden days would have been motordrive speed.

They do not have 20 programmable buttons, 5 autofocus modes, 50 frames per second, tracking focus, video ability and so on.

The absence of that makes for simple choices - sometimes one of which will be "can I even capture that with this camera" and sometimes you cannot.

For me the portability and simplicity are welcome and it is those qualities that mean I will take more images which means more practice and more practice is where the magic comes from whether it be guitar playing or taking photos or anything else.

Click to expand...

Let’s not forget the prestige that comes with this fine camera. People who know Leica will spot the camera amongst a crowd of others. It is like owning a Jaguar or a Bentley

If you want to start a war on DPR, just say there is a Leica Look or a Medium Format Look.

I'm not sure about that anymore (I used to say it and see it), but one thing is for sure.... The Q2 has amazing image fidelity, probably because of that amazing 28 mm Summicron.

There is nothing special about the Leica sensors. They are of course very good. But so are the sensors in the top-end lines from Canon, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, etc...

I think it is sensor size and glass.

But yes, Leica image fidelity is great (or the Q2 anyway because I don't have the other gear).

But if you want your eyes and brain to really pop, go peep at a GFX file of a detailed city-scape on a big pro 4, 5 or 6K monitor.

The Lamentable Lens said:

the cameras, on their own, don't produce meaningfully different results.

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't agree with that. If that were true I wouldn't be spending tens of thousands of dollars on camera gear.

But yes, any modern digital camera can produce an award-winning photo and I know photographers who can do wonders with a cell phone, micro 4/3rds, APS-C, low-end FF models or any camera you put in their hands.

But let's not pretend that a big expensive sensor and the best glass in the world doesn't make a difference.

But you are right. You certainly don't have to spend a lot of money to take great shots.

Greg7579 said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

the cameras, on their own, don't produce meaningfully different results.

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't agree with that. If that were true I wouldn't be spending tens of thousands of dollars on camera gear.

But yes, any modern digital camera can produce an award-winning photo and I know photographers who can do wonders with a cell phone, micro 4/3rds, APS-C, low-end FF models or any camera you put in their hands.

But let's not pretend that a big expensive sensor and the best glass in the world doesn't make a difference.

But you are right. You certainly don't have to spend a lot of money to take great shots.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's fair; I suppose I should have included more context. A 1-inch-type sensor with a cheap lens and a medium format sensor with a high-end prime can obviously produce very different photos directly as a result of the gear itself. My point was more narrowly intended for the kind of comparison the OP was referencing (e.g., comparing a Leica kit to flagship Nikon and Canon gear).

In any event, my second post above is more focused on the real point here. It's easy to give too much credit to the gear, and not enough credit to the photographer.

This has been an interesting thread, with the anticipated differences of opinion.

I come to this discussion with a background in photography starting in 1955 (Kodak "Brownie").

Later came Argus, Minolta, Cannon, and a few others.

When I got to Canon I used their "L" class lenses exclusively.

I have read too many reviews of cameras where the reviewer would say something to the effect that "there is something special about a picture with a Leica Lens" to believe that all cameras come out the same.

I can certainly say from my experience has been that the lens makes a BIG difference in how the picture turns out.

I have just recently joined the Leica camp with the SL2, along with the 24-90 zoom and the long zoom.

Despite my comment that the lens does make a difference, in my experience it is the photographer who makes the difference between a snapshot and a portrait.

However, the best photographer in the world cannot make up for a lesser lens.

I will also admit that the "pride of ownership" can make a big difference in how one views their equipment.

For those who say Leica takes lesser lenses and just changes the logo, I will say they have not used the "comparable" lens from another manufacturer and used the "same" lens made by Leica. I know a lot of reputable camera manufacturers who make their lens barrels from carbon fiber (or similar). But I have never seen a Leica lens that did not have a totally metal barrel.

If you have not picked up a Leica lens and the "same" lens from one of the Japanese manufacturers, you do not have the experience to make the claim that Leica "re-brands" other manufacturers' lenses.

Thanks,

Jim

The Lamentable Lens said:

But the cameras, on their own, don't produce meaningfully different results. If you did a proper blind test, almost no one would be able to tell the difference.

Click to expand...

That's like the violin test, when a violinist matched a Strad against contemporary instruments played behind a screen.

There are lots of different Leica looks. Different lenses from different eras render images differently. The same lens at different f-stops will render images differently.

For me it's more about the cameras: the way they handle and operate, particularly the way they focus.

-Dave-

David Kieltyka said:

There are lots of different Leica looks. Different lenses from different eras render images differently. The same lens at different f-stops will render images differently.

For me it's more about the cameras: the way they handle and operate, particularly the way they focus.

-Dave-

Click to expand...

Yes, you make a good point. I have a Sony A7 which has a very confusing menu system. I do think lenses matter, more. I have a number of Leica R lenses, which I use on it, hard to better, although I also have Zeiss which I class as top quality, too.

The Lamentable Lens said:

J_Allen said:

So you don't think there is any truth to the statement that Leica photos have a certain "look" to them?

I was going to post a few photos, but I guess there is no point.

Click to expand...

Oh, please do post photos -- I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it isn't worth discussing or looking at examples.

Whether or not the "Leica look" exists, I don't believe it's apparent to the vast majority of people, especially those looking at our photos (family, friends, clients, customers, even other photographers).

A great photo is the result of subject, story, exposure, composition, lighting, color, editing, printing, etc. The gear is just a tool (we do not praise paint brushes for creating great paintings). The more credit we give to the gear, the more we diminish the art of photography, and the more we fool new photographers into thinking they can spend their way to great photos.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting gear doesn't matter. A tool that makes you want to use it more often increases your chances of capturing great photos. A tool that makes you more intentional, thoughtful, and deliberate increases your chances of capturing great photos. A tool that creates less friction between your intent and the result increases your chances of capturing a great photo. And if you can see a "Leica look" in your photos, and that brings you joy, then that's reason enough to do it! I'm certainly not here to dissuade anyone from shooting Leica (I rather enjoy Leica cameras).

At the end of the day, the only way to know for sure is to try it for yourself. Whenever I've been meaningfully interested in a camera or a lens, I rent it or buy it so I can form my own opinions based on my own photography. It's also a lot fun

Click to expand...

LOL, ok. These were all taken with the Leica Q3, except for the two on the beach which were taken with the M10. There is something about the character of the softness along with the the subject that just seems to pop.

I could only insert small files like 1/2 of a megabyte at most or it would just hang for some reason.

I think at this point in my life that purchasing one is out of the question, but I'd love to rent one and try it out.

J_Allen said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

J_Allen said:

So you don't think there is any truth to the statement that Leica photos have a certain "look" to them?

I was going to post a few photos, but I guess there is no point.

Click to expand...

Oh, please do post photos -- I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it isn't worth discussing or looking at examples.

Whether or not the "Leica look" exists, I don't believe it's apparent to the vast majority of people, especially those looking at our photos (family, friends, clients, customers, even other photographers).

A great photo is the result of subject, story, exposure, composition, lighting, color, editing, printing, etc. The gear is just a tool (we do not praise paint brushes for creating great paintings). The more credit we give to the gear, the more we diminish the art of photography, and the more we fool new photographers into thinking they can spend their way to great photos.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting gear doesn't matter. A tool that makes you want to use it more often increases your chances of capturing great photos. A tool that makes you more intentional, thoughtful, and deliberate increases your chances of capturing great photos. A tool that creates less friction between your intent and the result increases your chances of capturing a great photo. And if you can see a "Leica look" in your photos, and that brings you joy, then that's reason enough to do it! I'm certainly not here to dissuade anyone from shooting Leica (I rather enjoy Leica cameras).

At the end of the day, the only way to know for sure is to try it for yourself. Whenever I've been meaningfully interested in a camera or a lens, I rent it or buy it so I can form my own opinions based on my own photography. It's also a lot fun

Click to expand...

LOL, ok. These were all taken with the Leica Q3, except for the two on the beach which were taken with the M10. There is something about the character of the softness along with the the subject that just seems to pop.

I could only insert small files like 1/2 of a megabyte at most or it would just hang for some reason.

I think at this point in my life that purchasing one is out of the question, but I'd love to rent one and try it out.

Click to expand...

Great photos! Leica images speak for themselves. So much prejudice from owners of lesser cameras. --
Owner of photography and other business. Firm believer in Free Enterprise and being FREE from a 9-5 job.

Remembering Steve Jobs and his mantra of product simplicity, beauty, perfection, Leica has consistently created products that fit into Job’s ethos, of course well before Jobs was born. The M and Q, with their popularity and avid following, bears this out. Not that the R, S and SL are lacking, but the M and Q clearly fall into the range of providing elegance, high quality in a compact package.



But if it wasn’t for the work from a number of early adopters (Haas, Salgado, Bartletts, Riefenstahl, Meyerwitz, Von Lawick) and some more recent users (Gibson and Aue Sobol, among many others), that ethos would not be known to me.



A remarkable heritage that Kaufman and Blackstone have adapted to competitive progressive trends and which will likely outlive its competitors, if there truly are any.

Mr Flip said:

Remembering Steve Jobs and his mantra of product simplicity, beauty, perfection, Leica has consistently created products that fit into Job’s ethos, of course well before Jobs was born. The M and Q, with their popularity and avid following, bears this out. Not that the R, S and SL are lacking, but the M and Q clearly fall into the range of providing elegance, high quality in a compact package.

But if it wasn’t for the work from a number of early adopters (Haas, Salgado, Bartletts, Riefenstahl, Meyerwitz, Von Lawick) and some more recent users (Gibson and Aue Sobol, among many others), that ethos would not be known to me.

A remarkable heritage that Kaufman and Blackstone have adapted to competitive progressive trends and which will likely outlive its competitors, if there truly are any.

Click to expand...

We find the SL to ooze confidence One of the best

finely crafted Leica lenses coming out bad in batches. Look at the bunber that go back for repair. Breaks new lenses shipped back, sensor issues.



I love Leica but reliable top quality engineering is a stretch.

h00ligan said:

finely crafted Leica lenses coming out bad in batches. Look at the bunber that go back for repair. Breaks new lenses shipped back, sensor issues.

I love Leica but reliable top quality engineering is a stretch.

Click to expand...

--

we’ve been adapting lenses to the SL2 so no lens issues. it’s an exquisite body and sensor

Owner of photography and other business. Firm believer in Free Enterprise and being FREE from a 9-5 job.

Besides the photographers choices a lot has to do with the f stop, the wider open the less field of depth. The Leica lenses are not oversharpend, the Fujifilm lenses are too clinical sharp and regardless of the sensor the algorithm that translates electric voltage into color to a large degree is responsible for the Leica look. The optics for the M and S are good examples.
The newly calculated Q lenses , designed with special glass mixtures in one unit with the sensor are highly optimized in all aspects including software correction.

For many of us 28 mm is too wide and if Leica ever will move to 35mm like the little fixed lens 35 mm camert by Sony or even consider 50mm like the Leica APO 50 mm lenses it will be much more complicated.

The closest to the „Leica look „ are the Zeiss 80 mm/ f 2 for the film Hasselblad and the Zeiss Contax 645 lenses. The S lenses have a higher resolution which not always is wanted , see pre aspherical lenses ,

In summary the Leica success is the result of many important design decisions , not trivial and expensive.

Dr. Ulrich Rohde said:

Besides the photographers choices a lot has to do with the f stop, the wider open the less field of depth. The Leica lenses are not oversharpend, the Fujifilm lenses are too clinical sharp and regardless of the sensor the algorithm that translates electric voltage into color to a large degree is responsible for the Leica look. The optics for the M and S are good examples.
The newly calculated Q lenses , designed with special glass mixtures in one unit with the sensor are highly optimized in all aspects including software correction.

For many of us 28 mm is too wide and if Leica ever will move to 35mm like the little fixed lens 35 mm camert by Sony or even consider 50mm like the Leica APO 50 mm lenses it will be much more complicated.

The closest to the „Leica look „ are the Zeiss 80 mm/ f 2 for the film Hasselblad and the Zeiss Contax 645 lenses. The S lenses have a higher resolution which not always is wanted , see pre aspherical lenses ,

In summary the Leica success is the result of many important design decisions , not trivial and expensive.

Click to expand...

Well said, thank you!

To confirm, are you saying there are certain lenses (or lens/camera combinations) that deliver a look that would be difficult or impossible to match with other systems?