Time to Get Honest about the Leica Look 

I believe that the ‘Leica Look’ is influenced by two important factors. Firstly, the camera lenses. Leica optics have their own characteristics, which are clearly visible in the image. This is a crucial element when creating specific look on a movie by the dop. It’s common to use Leica lenses in filmmaking to achieve a softer look, a specific bokeh, but with a lot of contrast to bring out the subject, the famous 3D Pop, which is more pronounced with certain lenses than others. The 35mm 1.4 lens is definitely part of this. However, I don’t think the camera itself and its sensor play a significant role in achieving the Leica Look. It could be interesting to conduct a test by swapping lenses between different camera bodies. On the other hand, using a Leica M is not the same as using a camera like the R5 or an A7. And since the tool is fundamentally different, it’s employed in a different manner to capture distinct images, and that’s what sets it apart.

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.

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?

I’m not a Leica owner and I was expecting virtually identical images between the Leica and Sony which was true, for the most part, however I have to admit that the Leica images seem to have a more lush, saturated glossy look to them. Just my opinion.

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.

Hey David. I’ve been a Sony shooter for years, and just got my Leica. I definitely picked the correct one. I’ve been thinking heavily on this topic that past few weeks whether it’s in my head as clever marketing or if it’s something real. The contrast, warmth, and bokeh stand out. But I think the Leica opts to in some way to color and skew toward bokeh in a way that Sony doesn’t. Like that’s its character; skew toward warmth, bokeh, and an insane dynamic range. Staring at Leica photos for weeks, it made it somewhat easy for me to pick out in your video. But to agree in a way, a lot of the look can be washed out quickly with presets and color grading. It’s definitely something out of camera that needs less editing, so my theory is the Leica Look just comes out nearly raw for everyone to see and the Look is just out there more often. If an image is edited and color graded as usual, then it really becomes hard to tell it’s a Leica.

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!

I’m not a Leica owner, unfortunately. I’m just a poor dive instructor in Thailand. But I’m a huge photography and camera nerd. A few years back, when I deeply looked into Leica and carefully looked at 100s of photos online I was able to almost 100% determine if a photo was shot with a Leica or another system. The Leica look surely is real. Thank you for a very interesting video. Looking forward to the next one. Greetings, Dominic

The Leica look is the more Contrasty look. If you look at the shadows the color is darker. If you look at the skin tones it is much warmer and contrasty. The higher the contrast that's what make it Leica. Either you like it or hate it. Also, it has a slight vignette.

I shot film for 20 yrs with M6 and Nikon. Essentially the Leica lens acts as if it has its own coating. The “micro contrast” is about adjacency; it’s like a wet drum scan vs a dry. Light areas affect the dark areas with a kind of falloff or overflow. Leica lens is so well made that this effect is minimised and therefore produces good dynamics particularly in the shadows. This is micro contrast. They are also about 20% sharper than Nikon lenses (older ones). Note I’m talking about film shooting but the principle is the same for digital

As a Leica owner I think the biggest giveaway is the look of the bokeh. It’s a lot busier in the highlights (people call it like. Nervous look?) but it also adds texture to the photo. Personally at this point I think all cameras can take a very similar photo whether it’s an older SLR with a 35 1.4 or the Sony with a GM lens. I think what you end up paying for is that little bit of character and the feeling of using a premium camera built with metal and the unique shooting experience with you can only get on a range finder system

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.

I think one of the biggest diffrence I can see is a white balance and color science difrence. The Leica color leans more to the reds and magenta and that can easily be adjusted in camera settings on the Sony. As far as character I beleive that has a lot to do with Lenses. I am pretty sure if you slapped that Summilux or even a Voightlander on the Sony you would get much more character than the clinical GM lens. At any rate I am not personally sold on the Digital Leica look specially at the price tag they go for.

You have misunderstood. The Leica look is not the photograph made by Leica gear, but the look on the face of the buyer after checking their bank balance after purchasing a body and a couple lenses.

Interesting. I instinctively got four of the five. The other one was the flair shot, I was uncertain on that one. But once I "knew" I feel I can see the same clues in the none flaired areas. It's hard to quantify but it's something to do with the transition as you approach the highlights , ❤

“Clinical” is a good word to describe the difference I’ve hear that word used quite a few times. I’m not a Leica user but the argument everyone makes against Leica M cameras-that they’re over priced and do much less for a far higher price-seems to have within it vindication for the use of Leicas. If all these amazing well known and famous photographers go to Leica M cameras for street and candid work despite having access to and even using many other systems when doing different types of photography it is clearly not just bias. I think it’s that random addition of character that varies from photo to photo, like the light in the shot with the sun in the background in the video. It’s not that it can’t be done in post with other cameras but it’s that it’s in the photo out of the camera so there’s elements that are dictated by the instrument. I might be wrong but that just the main difference there’s seems to be to me.

I recall reading somewhere that leicas sensors have a particular coating that helps with smoothening color rendition and focus falloff. There is a tangible difference even if you match up the colors. Sonys just lack that pleasing organic feel that company’s like Leica and Hasselblads are able to produce. Sony makes great spec sheets, but it’s takes extra work to get the images to not feel sterile. I’m speaking as someone who has shot Sony for years and also owned a Leica SL. No real comparison

Got 4 of 5 and felt confident about the 4 I got, not so much on the 1. I have the exact two cameras you used also lol. Leica is an experience and telling the difference is like you said, just for photographers who even care to. CHARACTER and shooting experience are it for me. Leica all the way!

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.

I got my Leica M9 because of the experience, not the look, the CCD sensor does render differently to CMSO though. I love the results and using the camera is so pleasurable. Picked out all 5 correctly, and for me, they just had a bit more character.

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.

As both a Leica and Fujifilm shooter I can say without hesitation that you can tell the difference in the raw files. All lenses are not equal. The one thing that has always separated Leica from the rest are their lenses. Even when I use them on my Fujifilm X-Pro3 I can tell the difference between those lenses adapted to the X Mount compared to native lenses are spectacular. Ever photo you should I could tell immediately which was from the M10-R and which was from the Sony. The Sony files looked flat and without character whereas the Leica shots were not flat, had pop, and had character. That said, you can tinker enough with most raw files to make any photo look like any other photo especially if you’re using Lightroom, PhotoShop, or Capture One. Whether you call it the Leica look or not there is something different about how Leica digital M cameras render especially with pared with the right Leica M lenses or even those from Voigtlander. But like anything having to do with art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder or in this case in the eye of the Leica look. 😂

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

I was able to get 5/5. The Leica images are slightly more contrasty with warmer brighter colors. There is a vignette that's distinguishable with that 35 lux and the highlights are more pronounced in the photos. The most obvious photo to see this in is photo number 2 imo where she is sitting on the grass infront of the wall of foliage. I agree it's very hard to see the difference but it is there if you look. However, to me it's only noticeable side by side. If you took one photo away and showed me separately each photo, I most likely wouldn't be able to tell!

Micro-contrast is a real scientifically measurable quality in a lens, as for 3D Pop it has to do more with the way lenses transition their out of focus areas, some lenses have abrupt transitions while others are far more gradient, there also charts for this, but most manufacturers do not share these charts since most people do not care. MTF charts are published by every manufacturer though, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss and Leica do particularly good job with them. Micro-contrast colour is a sensor aspect, most modern cameras wont shoot very good micr-contrast colour, or in better terms, it wont have very good colour separation particularly in the reds, this has most likely to do with manufacturers cheaping out on the colour dyes that were used to make the colour filter array that sits ontop of the sensor.

Comparing Leica to Fujifilm would be tougher. I guessed correctly 90% of the time. Sony felt too digital, while Leica images are tad warmer and more stylistic.

1. This is a great video, thank you. 2. I'm a Leica shooter and a total Leica fanboy. 3. I'm not emotional when it comes to the "Leica Look" because I think that it's mostly BS. Sure, color science is a thing and different camera sensors do in fact produce slightly different results - but the emphasis is on "slightly" and these differences are basically irrelevant because what little differences there are far outweighed by even the most basic editing steps in any raw converter. Tony Northrup has made great videos about this. 4. If there is such a thing as a "Leica Look" it will be mostly attributable to optics. Although I as a super-fanboy am convinced that Leica only produces S-tier lenses (😉) there are vast differences as to how they render, between Leica's different systems and also somewhat within the different systems, so I think there isn't such a thing as *the* (as in one single) Leica Look... 5. ...BUT I was able to correctly identify every single one of the Leica's pictures in your comparison (the one with the flares was indeed obvious, shot No. 4 was the hardest imho). The 35 Summilux imho has noticeably more vignetting - which I assumed since M lenses on average aren't as "technically perfect" (or as you put it: "clinical") as many modern, high-end mirrorless camera's lenses in general and especially Leica's SL lenses. So, in this comparison there indeed was an ever so slight difference, with the Leica equipment producing slightly less "perfect" (but a little more charming) images. 6. I think that if you had tested a different, more equivalent pair of setups against each other, like the Sony a7R V and an SL2 with a pair of equivalent lenses (maybe the 24-70-f/2.8s for both systems), I wouldn't have been able to tell which one was which.

Today my wife drew my attention to a photo that I took of her this summer in Mainz Cathedral with color film and my Leica M6. The photo print is small and I didn't notice it at all. My wife said „look, this picture looks like a painting as if it were hundreds of years old. If I didn't have the backpack on, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a photo or one old paintings.“ that's the Leica look

I guessed the Leica pics 5/5. It’s the GLOW for me. I can spot a Leica pic based on the GLOW. It’s just magical

My only experience with Leica is my recent purchase of what is already considered obsolete by the Leica crowd and it's the original Q. While I have a myriad of other cameras at my disposal, I take the Q with me everywhere and it's an absolute joy to shoot. I think you nailed it when you said it's the experience because while you can get the same or better elsewhere, these cameras just have character built into them and are just fun to shoot with.

I’ve won awards in professional only entry competitions with Nikon, Fujifilm and Leica. I’ve shot Leica M film and digital, Nikon film and digital, Canon film, Olympus digital and Fujifilm digital medium format. Each and every one took excellent images when I got my part of the process equally correct. Why do I shoot M now? I don’t really work as a photographer much now. Therefore all the client focused aspects of my equipment choices aren’t relevant. So I can shoot what I like. And I like M. Is there a look? Well if there is, it’s the glass. The old cameras shot the same film stock as every other 35mm and the colour came from the film. Best colour science out of camera to me is Fujifilm. Leica lenses are fantastic but getting fantastically expensive nowadays.

The camera body is $5000 minimum before you add lenses. I have a Screwmount Leica (ancient 1949) stuff. Takes great photos SLOWLY. The entire thing is built like a tank. Love it. I cost me $700 in total 10 years ago. If ALL you are going to shoot is manual and one lens it can be affordable if that is your workflow. It’s all about choices. If you are an artist, the image is the defining factor

Dude... we can't tell on YT. Agree with your general point as a Leica owner (Q2). It is the camera design, ergos, etc. which make it great. You hit it on the head. If we want to throw shade at the Q2, start with sucky auto-focus... But the blade shutter makes it wonderful. And then there is the lens...

you defined micro contrast at 11:04, where some lenses have a glow and some are more defined: micro contrast is the how the adjacent tones are differentiated- it is a kind of sharpness, edge definition, we used to talk about certain developers having 'accutance" or an edge sharpening effect- this is how I understand micro-contrast. It is also responsible for the 3D pop feeling. And it is different from overall contrast- for example the 28 cron asph has low overall contrast but good micro contrast. its is sharp, but not harsh tonally. Flat even. Most of the older Leica glass, the 50 pre-asph Lux, the 35 cron asph v4? were kinda flat, but sharp lenses. All the newer designs are much more modern, sharp, and I think have lost that what I would call Leica look which was soft tonally but excellent micro contrast. If you think of old Nat Geo photogs on Kodachrome 25, that was a soft painterly look, all Leica for the most part. So I guess it depends what era you are talking about for Leica "look".

I totally agree with you. I own Leica Q, SL2-s, M240 and previously owned an M10. I came from Sony, Canon and Fuji. There is color differences between sensors of course, but other than that, I think you can produce almost the same results using any camera. The thing that makes Leica is special is workflow and design of their cameras. The Leica look was more prominent when lenses wasn't as good as they are today. 15 years ago the camera landscape was different, expensive Canon/Nikon lenses was still not as good as Leica lenses but today, Sigma lenses are as good as any of the higher end professional lenses. I think there's a lot of trying to justify the purchase of Leicas that's going on, especially on forums online. It's ridiculous. Buy what you like, the most important thing is that you want to pick your camera up, it's as simple as that.

Dont know about Leica look, but honestly I spotted all 5 before you revealed the answer. I use a sony a7iii. But I would like to know what the sony pictures look like with adapted leica lenses. Better? It is a matter of taste.

There is Big Differens in color if you compared a jpeg from the camera VS Open a RAW File in lightroom VS Capture one. The all 3 will look completely Different. So you should Have compared it to JPEG from the Leica with the raw files opened and saved in lightroom or Capture one then you would have seen if there really is a big difference or not.. :) Great video!

I had 5 out of 5…but to be honest, I own an M10-R. There’s a lot of difference between the line-ups of Leica lenses and cameras. Not only between M and SL or S lenses, but also between Summilux, Summicron and e.g. Elmarit lenses. Simply said, if you want the sharpest, more clinical image like a Sony R camera with a GM lens, take a Summicron. Esp. the APO-Summicrons. For that beautiful focus fall-off that is in my view typical Leica, take a Summilux or even a Noctilux and use it wide open or 1 stop down at most. Any vintage lens has a special character, mostly due to optical limitations. I’m a professional fashion/beauty photographer and I’ve used most modern systems like Nikon Z, Sony, Fuji (GF)X and Leica S and SL. In the end there’s not a lot of difference and in post you can reduce it even further. What stands out for me and why I use Leica most (and even exclusively for personal work) is the handling of the camera and the process of image creation. If you want an expensive point-and-shoot that takes a technically perfect image no matter where you aim it at, take a Sony (or a modern Nikon or Canon or a Leica Q or SL…). If you take joy in the process of creation and don’t mind working to create that perfect image, take an M or an S.

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.

I've been using the Leica M from film to digital since the early 90s . I'm also using the Sony A7 series and the Fujifilm GFX. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages . At the end of the day, I keep going back to my M mainly due to portability and the character of the images. To me, they have a film look and need fewer editing to produce that film image quality that I prefer. And the images are not as clinical as the others. It could be due to the vintage lenses which I have been using since those days ie Mandler designed lenses. I've also given the Hasselblad digital a go but it's too perfect for my taste. Perhaps, I'm just old school

I suspect one reason that the quality of other lenses for electronicviewfinderful cameras has improved to be so much closer to Leicas recently is because the lenses are closer to the "film" plane, with the removal of the reflex mirror, and the light doesn't have to travel as far. Are older Leica lenses more obviously sharper than equivalent SLR lenses, wide open? Yup.

Don't have a Leica digital body (have vintage lenses) and I guessed 5 out of 5 (got lucky). I do have Sony and am not particularly thrilled with the SOOC images. I'd say they're more like 99% the same except for the lens flare shot. I also have Lumix and Canon, and find that I grab the S5 because of the layout, using manual vintage lenses. Character and 3D pop, IMHO, are caused be lens flaws. I think (guessing here) that the 3D pop is probably due to field curvature, which alters how the OOF areas render. If you look at some really, really old pics (80 to 100 years old), some lenses have such horrible field curvature that unexpected areas are in focus (i.e., far from the focal plane and with bokeh between the subject and alternate in focus area) giving the pictures a rather 3D look, almost like a special effect. Each time I see one of these pictures, I have a double-take because it's so unusual. When I put my first Leica vintage lens on an original A7S, I did experience that double-take... and that was with the camera in SLog2 (i.e., very flat and dull looking). So it wasn't color rendition but (guessing) a very subtle field curvature flaw that the subconscious mind picks up. With the modern, clinical lenses, those flaws are corrected. And as the saying goes, Canon does not have accurate colors compared to Sony, but those inaccuracies are what makes so many people like the Canon look. And of course, when we watch modern movies with their heavy grades, the colors are about a billion miles from being accurate (i.e., teal and orange, etc.). 😎

I got 5/5 correct, been a Leica user since 2010 with the Leica M8.2, recently just stopped using Leica, but been wanting to go back because of the M10-R, I kinda don’t like how mainstream Leica is now with the Q, like everyone has it, but Leica needs to do what they gotta do to survive.

Of course Leica photography has a look, as does Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc. I''m now 76 years old, and I remember an article in 'Creative Camera' magazine discussing this feature in the various camera makers. Nikon had that true grit look as did Canon, whereas Minolta, as favoured by Sarah Moon had a different, almost large format tonality which suited her style of photography. Mostly now though, in these days of computer designed lenses, the differences between lenses is small, mostly the differences are now about sensors and the computational programming surrounding that. In film days, the medium was a constant and it was much easier to find a difference in lens performance as it was the only thing that could make a difference, when comparing cameras, as long as the film was held flat. Most press pros in the 70's and eighties used Nikon, but then Canon developed the EOS autofocs system and that was all that was used from then on in. Some fashion photographers (ie Sarah Moon using Minolta) used different cameras, 35mm wasn't really a player in those days, Leica was no different, being always a niche and it hasn't changed today. Rollei and Hasselblad ruled the roost in pro photography. When Bailey used 35mm it was with a Pentax, did anyone critique his shots fo not having a 'Leica' look? The Leica always found users among the art photography crowd, Henri cartier-Bresson, Tony Ray-Jones et al, being a street photographers dream camera with it's discreet compactness and, it's great lenses. Not sure if I would like one, but I admire them for producing such a camera and some wonderful lenses. People get hung up though around gear. I mean, did Elliot Erwitt obsess about the fact that he was shooting with a Canon F1N and not a Leica? It's not the camera or the lens that make a great picture, it's the photographer.

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.

The Leica has a velvety feel, almost like when you oil wood for the first time or wax a car. Just has a deeper richness overall. I picked the Leica shots 100% of the time, it’s not just in everyone’s head.

I just got my Leica Q3 and lightroom doesn't show the "Camera Matching" profiles. The colors in-camera is way different than Adobe Color and Embedded profile. I prefer the In-camera colors.

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.

A couple of things come to mind. First, some M sense do impart "The Look". Try a 21 'Lux in soft light on your M11. Try some portraits with the current generation Noct at sunset. Next, some M lenses seem a bit more flat and dull. To me the 35 'Lux is a flat dull lens. Just me. Most other rave over the 35 'Lux. My mind is not made up over the 50 'Lux. The 75 'Cron is OK. The 90 'Cron can be magic. Lastly after using Photoshop for nearly 35 years I can usually extract "The Look" from more shots than I deserve. Part of the fun of photography… the process; the journey.

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.

I didn't want to see a difference, but I was able to pick out each comparison correctly.

The color and depth I always see tends to be in skin tones. I can really pick out where the skin tones are ever so slightly pink. That's the best I can do in differentiating. Love the idea here and think it's totally valid!

I am a Sony RX1 User and I spotted the leica in all 5 examples, except the last shot. IMO the leica got "juicier" colors and the Focus/out of focus transition is more interesting. I bought the RX1 for exactly the reasons you mentioned about why you shoot with your Leica.

As a leica shooter, I got them all right. but they are definitely very similar! Great video Dave

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.

I think mictocontrast is the rendering that creates more differences in color shades and black to white. It gives the illusion of depth better because of how our vision works. Some lenses are better at it and you need a camera capable of showing it in the picture.

Completely agree with the conclusions. Recently did a "test drive" (that's how they call it) of the M10P with the 35mm f2.0. Needless to say it was probably the shooting session I enjoyed the most. The feeling with the camera was crazy. Nothing like it.

As I understand lens design, the designer must work with conflicting choices. Correcting one optical aberration can affect other aspects of the lens, and the rendering. Leica lens design teams have chosen to correct abberrations in specific ways, which has resulted in specific “Leica Looks,” during the eras of different design teams. That is why there are fans of Walter Mandler lenses, for example, while others will be fans of Peter Karbe. (The one Mandler design that is still being produced is the Summicron-M 50mm, Version IV/V, with optical glass elements that are unchanged since 1979, though lens coating have evolved. Users have created the term “Version V,” whereas Leica still uses Version IV, in reference to current production.) In addition to the conflicting choices in aberration corrections, designers are constrained by size and weight limits, and keeping enough of the user base happy, while still appealing to some number of new and prospective users, none of which are simple tasks

Micro contrast makes more sense from a film developing perspective. I notice a big difference in the fine detail contrast depending on which developer I use.

5 out of 5 right. Have the M11. Sold all my Sony gear. Why - too complicated to use, too big/heavy and image color. Wish I could be specific. Sort of a combination of separation and warmth. Warmth not in terms of Kelvin, but a kind of soft creaminess combined with an apparent sharpness. I completely agree with the concept of character. You are absolutely right... I love going out and shooting with the M11. And because I love shooting with the camera, I believe my images are better. Just really like the character of the images. BTW, just came across your channel. Like you, I live in the Bay Area. Glad to find a fellow M shooting close by. Keep up the good work.

Apart from photo 1, which is sorta identical for both cameras, I guessed them all correctly, just by trying to choose the one that looked better to my eyes. It is like Sony pictures in comparison are a tad flattened and someone has lowered the contrast on them intentionally. I'm sure Sony pictures look fantastic if they're not placed next to Leica photos :)))

I got them all right! The photos are similar yet I picked the Leica every time. To me, the lighting transition is smoother on the Leica. I personally use the Leica M10-P and SL2 with M lenses. I love the Leica lenses and the rangefinder is my favorite.

Leica lenses were always designed to be very close to the film plane and that gives a greater intensity to light being focused. Circles of confusion will tend to be smaller and rounder. The use of glass formulations makes the lenses feel very highly corrected. There is less off-axis light causing glow. The lenses are tonal. Mirrorless cameras are gravitating towards the same design goals. The leica look was the difference between SLR optics and Rangefinder optics. Now the lens designs are gravitating towards rangefinder lens design goals. The Sony lens is operating more like a rangefinder lens. You are not debunking anything, you are witnessing a change in design ideals to better utilise putting the rear element of a lens closer to the sensor.

I got all of them right and to me it wasn’t hard to choose. Yes, the differences were minor, but as a Sony shooter, the one color I don’t like how Sony renders is green. So that was a dead giveaway in every shot. Because I always place with the HSL to get my grass the shade of green I want. But also, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus in the Leica has a less “modern” render. But that’s a lens thing to me and not so much the camera or sensors. Newer lenses have less of those unique characteristics as older lenses did. New lenses pair with new sensors are extremely sharp and that’s not always a good thing.

As a photographer, I could see the differences and got all. But Leica does have a unique look to it.

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.

I picked correctly and there is truth to feeling you get when you shoot the Leica. I just did a shoot with my M11 with the 50 Lux and my R5 and the 50 1.2 and you can see a slight difference. Great job!

I don't have a dog in this race as I own/owned multiple brands but yes on my 4k TV I can spot the Leica for most - not all - but most of the shots despite your 3 seconds (come on) and YT compression. Leica does a subtle rounding of highlights, slightly increased contrast, and a subtle pastel-like shift to colors - in the sensor, independent of the lens. When I had the 601, it's merits shone in the noise. Beautiful grain. Yes I did comparisons (S5II, GFX100S). Unfortunately the internet excels as reducing everything to difference/no difference. "95% the same" doesn't mean anything beyond one person's arbitrary assessment. The better question is can the 'Leica look' be replicated in post - and why did it take Sony so long for their color science to be decent SOOC (yes I've owned Sony).

I shoot range finder cameras for more than 40 years, started back in the analogue film times with Werra body and Zeiss Tessar lens. I love the concept of range finder and probably I will never buy a camera with the view finder in the horizontal center. But, there is nothing like range finder glass vs. dslr glass. The glass is universal and has nothing to do with the style of the camera. Todays Leica uses Sony sensors. So, there is no difference in the sensor. There is a difference in lens. The old lens had more imperfections. Leica is not trying for optical perfection and their lenses still have more imperfections than glass from Sony, Canon, Sigma and others. Some photographers like the imperfect photos more... and fair enough, nothing wrong with that. It's just good to admit that this is what it is. It is similar to vinyl records vs. CD sound. You may like some attributes of the imperfect result over the sterile output trying for perfection. And the imperfection, you can call it character. There is also second Leica character when you shoot to JPG and not raw, but actually it is just a different colors translation table and compression algoritm. Actually, this is just the software part and is very minor.

love the video. i have an objective hypothesis on the "Leica look"- and that is there is no such thing as a Leica look that is a direct result of particular camera equipment, at all. there is absolutely a correlation between a Leica look and specifically how, for example, a photographer composes their shots and makes decisions due to the challenges presented with the Leica M. so let's clear something right away, the Leica look whatever it may be, you'll never get that 100% of the time, even while using a Leica M camera yes? and just as you've tested in this video, your results show that if there is a Leica look, it's not produced by the gear itself. if we look at more facts- let's talk about bokeh, i've heard people say Leica's bokeh is "the creamiest" or the "most buttery" but Leica's aperture blade setup is different from lens to lens, they couldn't possibly all produce the same exact experience with bokeh. so i have a hypothesis that there may be a Leica look that is more tied to the camera's form somewhat dictating the way a photographer shoots. the fact that Leica M in particular is 100% manual for example, the challenge of it has to affect the photographer's decision making at the end of the day. the fact it uses a traditional rangefinder method with a traditional focus patch, that affects how the photographer sets up their shots. but this is unique to Leica M- you theoretically wouldn't get the same style out of Leica Q or some of their more automatic systems. how i came to this conclusion is from another one of your videos, i mentioned i looked through my catalog of photographs from my past and i couldn't tell you what camera i used- i was wrong about a particular camera, which is the Sony NEX-5t. the only camera i owned with a flip up screen, i could tell many of the photos i took with that camera for one reason- i shot from the chest with the Sony- because it only had a screen and the screen flipped directly upward. so the way a camera works and the form it takes on, most likely has an effect on the shooter and many times causes the shooter's style to be a certain way. back to your video, your experiment backs the first part of my hypothesis in that if you decidedly shoot the same exact shot, you clearly see the "look" has almost nothing to do with the gear. but, i think if you spent half a day with the Sony just shooting whatever you want- and then the other half with the Leica M shooting whatever you want, you will start to see more of a distinction. to extend the hypothesis, i'd even go out on a limb and say cameras that have almost no limitations like the Sony- cameras that make it too easy to shoot anything, you'll shoot anything then. there typically won't be any distinct style or look at all in the body of your work cuz you're gonna shoot buildings, you're gonna shoot macro, you're gonna shoot cars, animals, you'll shoot whatever the camera will let you. with a typical M setup you won't even be able to get very close to a lot of things so such limitations force you to be more creative in a way. but anyways thats more an extended theory, i think overall the "Leica look" is a combination of what and how you shoot + a solid image capturing system. there's certainly Leica shooters who've never achieved the Leica look- thinking they can just point their Leica at anything and it'll magically poop out Leica look, and of course that's not the case. it's got more to do with the shooter, i'm certain of it

I always thought it was the Leica lenses that did the heavy lifting with the Leica look but recently I put a cheap and basic Nikon lens on my SL2-S and lo and behold there it was, the Leica look and colours. I was not expecting that. There wasn't the beautiful contrast that Leica lenses are known for but all in all the results looked like Leica more than not.

Great video! Im a Leica shooter myself, and picked out all the Leica shots :). Peter Kare said that the leica M lenses produce a faster falloff than what the aperture normally would produce. And I think there is more highlights in your leica shots than the Sony ones. Specially on your wife's face, when on the Sony, the face is more obvious in shade the Leica shot had more highlights (more light) in the same place. Even when the sun was in the same place in comparison to your wife. But both systems produce fantastic images for sure.

I don't have a A7RV (don't have a Leica) I was able to pick out the leica images 5/5 mainly because of the vignetting and deeper blacks. I do agree that neither look is better, for example if I'm trying to take images with more pastel-y tones I wouldn't want to use my m mount lenses because they do have deeper blacks and a bit more contrast where as my GM is way more flat. In terms of sharpness I really don't think there is a difference though!

I picked the Leica photos correctly three out of four times (and I watched at 2x speed). The Leica photos have a darker/richer color range and the Leica handled the overexposure from speckled light better than the Sony. Still, Leica's not worth $6K-12K when a consumer could by multiple Canon R6s for that amount and use Lightroom to make whatever corrections you need.

For me, Sony has always had a "colder" color theory. I noticed the warmer Leica images immediately. Fun comparison, would love to see you add Canon & Nikon to this.

Sincere, sober and honest words ! Not always what our emtional side wants !

Really great video Dave! Not sure if my comment will be interesting but I'll share it anyway as I'm not classified as a photographer. I've never own a camera in my life (33 years old now) and I just bought my first camera last week. It was a second hand, Leica D-Lux typ 109. A very old one. Why did I get Leica as my first camera? Because I own a smartphone where the camera was "Tune" by Leica. Not sure how much Leica is involved in this though but that Leica Look were somewhat present in my photos that my phone took and I was able to guess all of your photos correct. I haven't tested my D Lux outside as of this writing. I'm still learning the basics of photography but I agree with your finding that it is Leica Look is a charecter, which is heavily personal preference and the Leica experience is being compact. I'm so drolling over on those Q1 or Q2 Leica camera. It is my dream to own one of them.

I think the most impressive part of this whole thing for me is how intelligent and respectful everyone’s comments are. Compliment to Dave I would say for gathering such folks. For my two cents I would say that I was able to guess all five and I’ve concluded it’s the “pop”. And to me that is the unique rendering in the falloff. Looking at the edge of the in focus part of the subject was how I came to my conclusions. Having said that I agree that no “normal” person would ever tell the difference. I have stared at 1000s of photos from my Q2 and R5 and to me it’s real. I love those R5 colors equally though. Beautiful images, both of them.

I own the Leica Q2 and love its versatility and quality! To me Leica has far more "pop" in the pictures. They look far more 3D than any other camera and lens could do.

I actually guessed correct. But instead I went for the gmaster look. I think the differentiation is simply Leica shooters are more likely to be more experienced photographers therefore they understand lighting better. They are simply decent photographers given due to them spending so much more money on equipment. While of course this isn't ALWAYS the case but I would suggest that someone who is spending 10k on photography equipment will more likely know photography better than someone who just bought a Sony. There are great photographers using all types of cameras at the end of the day.

One more thing: Photos are made by specialists, but viewed by the general public. So even though a fraction of the photographers may be able to distinguish the Leica look, the mass consumers of photos never will.

I tend to think of the look as more of a "German Look", since I feel Zeiss and Leica optics achieve more or less the same characteristics on Leica, Canon, Nikon and Sony - any decent camera. Even in cinematography. Of course, there's a difference in sensors and how software interpret the files, but this difference seems kinda insignificant to me - it all come's down to optics IMO. Some of the Sony-Zeiss's have a more clinical look and seems in-between for me. Like a modern Zeiss/Leica where some of the quirks, character and "imperfections" that define the "German Look". That's my 5 cents.

Spot on Dave, it's not better. It has a vintage look (sometimes or in certain circumstances). It is an experience - that's it. Tactile, heritage. The rangefinder presence probably does something to our way of approaching a motive and ups the attentiveness to the subject in a different more contextual way rendering a different (better?) photographical artwork? I don't know about myself - I just love it. Looking at it, the intuitive handling, the fact that Queen Elisabeth II and renowned photographers chose this for their snapshots or reportage work, which later was considered the finest artwork. A year into my own M-quest, I simply feel that I came home. It's handy, neat, nimble, simplistic and primitive even - but quite simply an ergonomic tool for creating photographs. And it's different from anything else.. Different is not better, but thank God we have different in this day and age ;-)

As the Q2 owner I guessed 5/5 😂 For me the difference is clear even watching it on 6” mobile, but I agree with you - Sony is probably a more reasonable purchase.

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

The biggest difference between Sony and Leica is the White Balance handling in my opinion to be honest. Leica white balance tends to be a little warmer (greens and yellow) enhanced. While Sony seems to have a cooler setting

Interesting side by side comparison.. I got 5/5, solely by looking at the out of focus areas or the grass. Leica lenses tend to produce that "microcontrast" in a very visible way in the out of focus areas while not looking too crunchy or digital. Perhaps that gives a perceived effect of subject separation, it's not as if the Sony shots looked flat. I wonder if the Leica look became popular simply because of the "pop" given to subjects of photojournalists' portraits over the past few decades. Those photographers seem to have a particular fondness for Leica gear.

Honestly got 5 out of 5 for the Leica, most pretty quickly and prefer those images to the Sony. Shot 4 was the hardest.

I picked the Leica every time. How? Two reasons. The Sony images had a flatter look to them. Is this the “3D Pop”? Maybe. The 2nd reason was the colors. There seemed to be a slightly greater depth to the colors with the Leica shots. Am I a Leica owner? Yes, I own one Leica camera, a TL2 which I shoot with vintage Takumar lenses. It isn’t my main shooter (I shoot with a GXR and Pentax more) and many Leica gatekeepers will tell you my TL2 is barely a Leica at all (APS-C sensor, touch screen etc) but… when I borrowed a friend’s Elmarit 28mm and adapted it the the TL2 the images were definitely different, they suddenly had the “look”. I’m convinced it’s a matching of sensor and glass.

Well I guessed correctly every single time which photos were Leica. I am a Leica shooter M11 with 50 lux and Q3 (personal work) but I also shoot with Canon R system (for work). I can say without hesitation that I generally prefer the images coming out of my Leica’s. Probably more to do with the glass than the sensor/processor but there is a discernible difference to those who shoot with the Leica system vs others.

I guessed right most of the pictures but I’m a canon shooter. That Leica lens has higher contrast but is creamier- that is contradictory. But they managed to do it that way. I think I can get a similar look with that lens on another brand. Why so many Leica users have overly strong curves adjustments? Hard to see what’s there in the high and lowlights. Thanks for a very interesting video 👍😀

Hmm, I was able to spot the Leica images without any problem - TBH - I was a bit surprised, given the impact of YT compression etc. - but it was like night and day. Not really sure what it is in scientific terms, maybe micro-contrast, whatever that is, has something to do with it, but I suspect other factors, lens imperfections etc. play a part. I think that there is also a Zeiss look too, not really sure what that is either - but I can recognise it when it is there. Not sure how you can describe an emotional reaction in scientific terms - it's kind of like you are more in the real space viewing the image rather than looking at a photograph - if that makes any sense at all. Thanks for the video, really interesting - and though provoking, much appreciated!

I managed to get them all right. I could pick Leica images. I mostly shoot landscape and nature photography. What I'm always able to pick out with Leica digital images: - Stronger shadows/blacks - More controlled and saturated highlights - Smoother tonal gradations - Slightly punchier warm tones, especially the oranges/reds - Larger local contrast in finer details

Cool video. Guessing the pics I managed 5 out of 5 to my surprise, though I preferred the Sony on pic 3. I found the Leica images to look very similar to the Sony for sure, but whatever is in focus simply seemed to stick out more. My eyes were drawn to a more specific portion of the image in the Leica shots, where I was more likely to wander with the Sony. That's how I could tell which was which. I guess that's the 3D pop portion of the "Leica look" coming into play? Either way, neat comparison. (For reference, I shoot as a hobby/collector and have cameras in most systems from 1" Nikon 1 to my A7Siii. No real bias towards one system or another.)

The Leica shots consistently have blacker, deeper blacks. I was able to spot 4 of the 5 Leica shots right away. Is one better? No, but my eye prefers the Leica. I also understand that this is so nuanced that most people won’t notice or care. Great video!

I was able to guess 4/5 of the photos, got the flower photo wrong. But overall the photos look very close. I think the Leica look is more psychological than a particular rendering that gets attached to the image output. That feeling of using the rangefinder with your manual focus, taking the photo and then seeing what the photo actually looks like. I think that creates an emotional attachment to the image thus making you feel like it has a certain look. It is a lot like film, you don't really know what you are going to get until you take the photo and view it after. When using an EVF there is no surprise to the process and I find it way less exciting to take photographs. Because of that I am not as invested in the output that the camera makes.

How isn’t everybody seeing this? picked all of these out in a split second, and I’m watching this on a PHONE. The Leica vignettes more heavily and is more contrasty, it’s really not hard to tell. Not saying you can’t achieve the same look on the Sony but SOOC there is a difference.

I shoot with a lot of Zeiss lenses, so I was able to pick up on the "pop" of each image and guessed correctly. Thought the Leica images stood out to me SLIGHTLY more so than the Sony, but DEFINITELY not worth spending an extra $5k. Thats absurd...

I guess you nailed it spot on with your words. Every true professional here on YT said it many times: There is no real photo image quality difference between camera brands nowadays. Even all the camera companies know that fact. In my opinion that's the reason why they shifted in marketing strategy the last 5 years and push more on video features, AI stuff and emphasizing what kind of screen each camera has. And because modern lenses get even more clinical, a lot of people add vintage lenses and/or film into their kits. There is no right or wrong, since everybodys preference / taste is different. As you perfectly underlined I also got into Leica because of the experience + the build quality, since I'm a sucker for good craftmanship. I don't care, if the a brand is luxuries or not, but Leica offers something, which other brands don't. Imagine Fujifilm would offer something like a manuell full frame M system - by the power of market competition Leica would be forced to rethink those prices :D But that won't happen in the next 10 years :')

I'd say the low (8) element lenses have a softer look compared to a high (14) element lenses. The low element lenses will pass more light through giving fine contrast rendering providing the sensor can pick it up. As for the sensor they are all bayer but perhaps Leica sensors have a slightly different colour filter (more transparent) compared to other bayer sensors. That and also debayering process unique to that sensor/brand. A good test would be to swap lenses and check the sensors behaviour. I'm content with my Foveon sensor, it gives real colours and is a king of micro contrast. 😊