What's Leica rendering?

[Lawrence A.]

I don't understand the Leica loathing of some of the contributors here, who assume if they cannot see it then it must be a delusion on the part of those who claim they can -- "Leica lovers" with apparently base motives to justify their financial outlay.

It's very unattractive.

 

[slackercruster]

thanks for the kind words... and your stamina

really liked your old hollywood shots

K

Thanks!

Only suggestion is to make your shots more accessible. Maybe like a checkerboard grid, so many on page to click on. Would love to see more, but the scrolling one by one takes its toll on my time.

btw..here is my dead pigeon.

View attachment 221546

 

[Bhupinder2002]

I don't understand the Leica loathing of some of the contributors here, who assume if they cannot see it then it must be a delusion on the part of those who claim they can -- "Leica lovers" with apparently base motives to justify their financial outlay.

It's very unattractive.

Hahaah I like it and fully agree . My shot didnt have 3D pop as it was shot with cheap 45-200 mm lens .I had PL25 mm for 3-4 months but I never saw any 3D pop out kind of thing .I am picking up another one tomorrow and will see again..
Cheers
Bhupinder

 

[Luckypenguin]

Thanks!

Only suggestion is to make your shots more accessible. Maybe like a checkerboard grid, so many on page to click on. Would love to see more, but the scrolling one by one takes its toll on my time.

Try this website to view flickr images in a larger size and in a continuous stream.

Fluidr / Today's Explore

Use the search function to find what (or who) you want

 

[kevinparis]

Lucky

thanks for that.... I am sure there must be one of these sites that does this but in a grid format.


kevin

 

[Luckypenguin]

Lucky

thanks for that.... I am sure there must be one of these sites that does this but in a grid format.


kevin

Something like this?

Nic (Luckypenguin)´s photostream on FlickeFlu

You need to hover over and click on the "detail" icon to show image information, though.

 

[kevinparis]

nic

that looks a good find... if you set the picture size to small you get a nice grid layout... and the full frame not a square

sadly the log feature seems bust at the moment

K

 

[parka]

3D pop?

Isn't that just a variable of aperture and sensor size?

I used to think that "Wow, Leica lens, Leica looks!" but then I saw the Canikon 35mm 50mm f1.4 photos on fullframe.

There's no Leica look. Just the aperture and sensor size, and the bokeh rendering of course.

Here's mine from the 25mm Nokton on GH2. Is there the Leica look?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

No. But it sure looks like they are standing in front of a large printed poster.

 

[Brian S]

Lenses design to give the illusion of 3-D in a flat photograph were formulated to give good focus across a wide-range of distances rather than a best focus on a flat plain.

Dr. Paul Rudolf, inventor of the Tessar, designed the "Double-Plasmat" to give the illusion of three dimensions on a 2-D image.

 

[994]

Lenses design to give the illusion of 3-D in a flat photograph were formulated to give good focus across a wide-range of distances rather than a best focus on a flat plain.

Dr. Paul Rudolf, inventor of the Tessar, designed the "Double-Plasmat" to give the illusion of three dimensions on a 2-D image.

Interesting, but how does that relate to Leica lenses or the "semi" Pan-Leica? I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know if those are related to these two lenses in question.

 

[Kiwi Paul]

To deviate a wee bit I used to have the Zuiko(Olympus) 4/3 SHG lenses and the 14-35 and 35-100 were exceptional in that were really able to make an image "pop", whether that is similar to the classic Leica look I'm not sure, my point is however that these lenses have many characteristics that make them so good, yes they are very sharp, but they also have excellent resolution, contrast and nice bokeh and combine these elements together in a way that creates lovely images that are special.
I think that folk who like to rate a lens purely on it's "sharpness" are really missing the point of what a good lens is all about yet it's surprising how often folk will use that attribute to rate a lens.

Paul

 

[Brian S]

Interesting, but how does that relate to Leica lenses or the "semi" Pan-Leica? I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know if those are related to these two lenses in question.

Now, let me say it upfront that I don't intend to start a war or a flame thread. I just want to understand (preferably with pictures) as to what leica rendering is. I have seen a lot of photos made with Zeiss lenses and a lot of them definitely have that 3D pop. I understand from various threads that some people just don't see that 3D effect. I am wondering if that's the case with me when it comes to Leica rendering. I have this question because almost everyone who has used the 20mm and the PL 25mm says the 25mm has better rendering or drawing style. But, honestly, I don't see it. So, can you please guide me as to what I am looking for when it comes to rendering by Leica lenses?

I did not realize the discussion was limited to two lenses, but was a bigger question regarding "Leica rendering". I don't own the specific two lenses, but have 30 or so other Leica lenses- many used on the EP2. About the same number of Zeiss lenses in Contax and Leica mount- also use on the EP2.

The point is: the Leica lenses were not formulated to give the illusion of 3D on a 2D image. Leica lenses tend to be formulated to give flatness of field, best focus in one plane. Sonnars and others have a higher degree of field curvature.

Lighting, DOF, color-content, distance from in-focus foreground to background, and actual scene content is responsible for the "3D" look that many people seem to attribute to Leica lenses.

For a lens designed for a 3D look, it's been done. Goerz made the lens- not Leica.

 

[jloden]

If nothing else, this thread just goes to show how subjective so much of photography is

 

[kevinparis]

If nothing else, this thread just goes to show how subjective so much of photography is

absolutely.... especially as we all have different objectives in indulging in photography... to some the ideal photo/camera/lens will perfectly capture what they see in front of them, to others, myself included, its more about making an interesting image, not taking a perfect photo

K

 

[Brian S]

Classic Leica Rendering, 9cm F4 Collapsible Elmar in M-Mount. wide-open, on the EP2.



90mm f2 Summicron-M, at F2.5, on the EP2.



Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, wide-open.



Nikkor 105/2.5 Planar formula lens, F-Mount, wide-open.



So who can see "pop" on which lenses? Subjective view of objective lenses.

My favorite is the $100 Elmar 9cm F4.

 

[abl33]

i'm no expert but if you go to seriouscompacts.com and check out the Leica X1 image thread, especially images #65, 130, and 137, these are some examples that convince me of the existence of "Leica rendering" and make me want to get an X2 in spite of its cost and apparent shortcomings...

 

[sam_m]

Basically it comes down too a fast lens with great contrast and the composition of the shot, that is what sums up 3d pop and the Leica look .

 

[Lawrence A.]

I have a 90mm Elmar F4 in screw mount from 1946, and I love shooting it on my E-P2 and E-M5. It renders tonal changes silky. Talk about subjective!

As for "pop", I have to confess that what it means is a mystery to me. If my images don't pop I adjust the curves (or the development time, or the grade of paper); other than that, popping is what I listen for the popcorn to do in the microwave. I'm not being snide, really. "Pop" was never in my photographic lexicon, and it's only recently I've run across the notion. I ask a lot of my lenses, but I most definitely don't want them popping on me. Or snapping or crackling.


So who can see "pop" on which lenses? Subjective view of objective lenses.

My favorite is the $100 Elmar 9cm F4.[/QUOTE]

 

[nseika]

Never thought of textures before. But most of the time, I still feel it’s about edge contrast of the objects, even on near infinite DoF photos. So like Brian said, it’s the lighting and subjects.

Or maybe we need samples of snapshots from peoples who shoot Leica with just average skill to see if the lens made it instead of the situation.

So who can see "pop" on which lenses? Subjective view of objective lenses.

My favorite is the $100 Elmar 9cm F4.

The Elmar

Summicron and Elmarit probably have the pop too, but too much highlight clipping to see it.
The Nikkor's "pop" is at the stamen, while the Leicas are at the leaf, but that's just the point of focus.

 

[jyc860923]

I'm going to do a comparison myself with the 14-45 and 25 1.4 to know what exactly is the leica rendering