Struggling with Decision About SL2-S

[lencap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've posted earlier, but continue to struggle with the decision to sell off my Nikon Z6 with the 24-70 f/4 zoom and buy the SL2-S with the 24-70 lens.  Sorry if this sounds like a redundant post, but with lots of new cameras coming out, including the new M11, I want my next camera purchase to be the last one.  

My reason for selling the Nikon is simply the overly complex menu system along with the "haptics" of the camera that doesn't feel or work as easily as my Leica Q.  As much as I wanted a smaller footprint camera, like my M7/9/M-A, the Z6 isn't very comfortable in hand or use.  I realize that this is subjective, but it's still "a thing" that annoys me.

As I compare the specs of the SL2-S and 24-70 zoom they are very similar to the Nikon Z6 zoom combo.  The result is that on trade I'll be paying quite a large increase to get a camera with similar specs, but, at least for me, a better haptic experience.  Truth be told there is also some "red dot" desire behind my potential SL2-S purchase, so it's not a purely rational decision process.  I'm also not sure that the added cost will be worth it.

Has anyone had experience with the Nikon Z6 package, and if you did swap it for a Leica (SL or M) did you find the experience lived up to your expectations, or did you find you had some buyer's remorse? 

BTW, I love the Leica Q, but haven't come to a comfortable place with the 28mm perspective.  I find composing a challenge, and getting pictures of people even more challenging - trying to avoid being in their face versus getting distortion from the 28mm perspective.  I also want to retain the resolution of the sensor, so cropping isn't my preference.  Finally, the Q has a lens that seems to replicate the M lens experience of past lenses I've owned.  I love the zone focusing markings, the intuitive use of the camera and the ease of moving from autofocus to manual focus.  I explored the Q2, expecting that cropping would be less of an issue, but the 28mm perspective is still difficult to work with, especially with senior citizen eyesight.  

I've considered a used M10, but it's hard to justify that purchase when the SL2-S has lots of features that appeal to me, including the potential to autofocus.  I'm not sure if the added weight would bother me over time as well.  Still I miss my M7/9 (the M-A was great, but film developing isn't my forte), and having small compact lenses is something I miss.  Still, trying to focus anything faster than the Summicron lenses is a challenge, so i default to a greater depth of field to be sure I capture the shot I want.  That works, but the whole magic of Leica lenses, at least to me, is the ability to get that "dreamy" look of bokeh contrasting with the main subject.  I acknowledge that autofocus makes this task far easier, but some of the joy of shooting is lost, at least for me.  It's kind of like driving my Tesla - the initial "wow" factor is high, but after a while you realize you really like driving, and miss having a manual transmission sports car (full disclosure - I sold the Tesla for a Miata - nothing rational about the decision, just a desire to enjoy driving instead of being driven).  That's kind of why I'm not yet an SL owner - I'm not convinced that after the initial wow factor, I'll miss the simple joy of the M ethos.

Thanks for giving me a way to try to resolve my confusion - this forum is very helpful, and filled with people that really know photography.  Thank you!

Edited December 27, 2021 by lencap
Make post more clear

[Ken Abrahams]

I am still very happy with the SL 601 after nearly six years. I prefer the colour files the SL produces compared to the M10 and I would only buy auto focus lenses if I was to  engage professionally. It sounds like you are giving a lot of thought to the purchase as opposed to anything else. Good luck.

[MrFriendly]

If 28mm is too wide, then why are you considering getting the 24-70mm lens?  Besides, I think the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm is designed by Sigma, so you might as well go with the Sigma 24-70mm Art lens (slightly lighter and less than half the price).

If you decide to go with the SL2-S, I highly recommend either the APO-Summicron-SL 35mm or the APO-Summicron-SL 50mm as your first lens.  I honestly don't see the point of getting into the SL system without at least owning a single Leica SL prime lens.

Also, the SL system is heavy, so try it out if you can before buying.  I'm probably half your age (very skinny), and my neck starts to hurt after couple hours of carrying the SL2-S.

[Anakronox]

I’m a former Nikon shooter and my last two bodies of theirs were the D850 and Z6.  I had no real complaints about the feel of the cameras in hand.  They were both comfortable in my pretty large hands.  Nor was image quality a major issue, especially with the D850.  However, the operation of those cameras was overly complex compared to the wonderful simplicity of the digital M10 and M10M.  After selling off the Nikon gear, keeping the Ms, I ended up trying out the original SL and digital CL.  Both were simple, fairly intuitive, and just let me shoot without worrying about hidden functions buried in a menu somewhere.  I traded both of those in for the SL2 and am very happy with it for its purposes - portraits and landscapes.  It’s more than enough camera for me, and is very comfortable in the hand.  I tend to favor the Ms or Q2/M when out walking, but the SL2 isn’t overly heavy with an SL Summicron.  I don’t wear them around my neck though, preferring rope straps that I coil around my wrist.  Hope this perspective helps your decision. 

[Alistairm]

The SL2-S with zoom will feel more like the Z6 with Zoom than a Q. 

However, the SLS-2 with an M lens can be a gorgeous walk around  package and I expect you’ll find it much easier to predictably hit focus with M lenses than with a rangefinder. 

What glass have you got? I love the SL system, but all of the glass is very expensive, including the wonderful M lenses. 

Putting it another way… I wouldn’t switch from the Z6 to SL2-S for just the zoom, but if you want to explore a bunch of other Leica glass it makes complete sense. 

 

 

[threeseed]

a) M series is actually an inflexible camera only working well between 35-50mm, slower than f/1.4 and it has a limited selection of lenses.
Where as I on my SL2-S I have an M mount 28mm + 50mm and a L mount 100-400mm. And have placed an order for the Voigtlander 50 f/1. Good luck focusing that on an M.

b) Manual focus on SL2 is amazing. Focus peaking and the bright, clear EVF means you have much more granular control over your shots than with the rangefinder system. 

c) Autofocus on SL2 is very average and way, way behind what you see in the latest Sony or Nikon cameras.

d) No noticeable weight difference between SL2 and M. And the incredible grip on the SL2 makes it a joy every time you pick it up.

e) SL2 is rugged and built like a brick. You won't ever have to worry about rangefinder going out of alignment.

f) Don't underestimate the importance of IBIS. It can save a lot of shots and give you more flexibility in tougher shooting conditions.

Edited December 27, 2021 by threeseed

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, threeseed said:

No noticeable weight difference between SL2 and M

I have owned both cameras (M240, SL, SL2, SL2S) , and in my hands there is an obvious difference in size and weight.

[threeseed]

I have owned both cameras (M240, SL, SL2, SL2S) , and in my hands there is an obvious difference in size and weight.

17 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I have owned both cameras (M240, SL, SL2, SL2S) , and in my hands there is an obvious difference in size and weight.

 

Size: Of course. But often people add in a grip to the M camera to improve handling.

Weight: 835g versus 680g. That difference disappears for me the second you start adding lenses.

Edited December 27, 2021 by threeseed

[hansvons]

I’ve used a loaned Z6 on portraits, landscapes and wildlife. The Z6 is the better choice for wildlife because the AF is better. In every other category, the SL2-S wins. The Leica is also much more robust than the Nikon, which, naturally, comes with more weight and a larger size. The SL2-S EVF is world-class and cannot be compared to the Z6 EVF. The same applies to the menu. I know that colours are highly subjective, but the main reason why I got an SL2-S is its colour rendition. 

I have no experience with the Leica 24-70 zoom yet but with its Sigma sibling. It’s a good zoom, no surprises. But the original 24-90 SL zoom plays in its own league. I’d either get this one or my preferred focal length as a prime (in my case, that would be the 50mm Summicron SL or Summilux SL) for the full Leica experience. 

Besides, the SL2-S is quite likely the most versatile camera when adaptability to manual glass is the measure. AFAIK, it’s the only mirrorless that can be used with all M lenses in existence without soft corner issues.

[lencap]

Thanks to all for the replies, they are much appreciated.  You've given me several things to consider including the autofocus speed of the Leica system versus competitors, overall weight of the SL combo zoom, and a clearer focus (no pun intended) on clearly identifying my priorities before making a decision.  

Your comments are also leading me to question if replacing gear is a bit of a fools errand in terms of specs, but maybe the underlying desire to change is just to move to an all Leica system.  If that's the case I just need to accept that and either embrace or reject it.  My photography skills are not spectacular, and if I just compare images i take with a Leica SL setup versus a Nikon Z6 setup it's not likely that I'll notice a huge difference, especially if I take the time to learn the subtleties of each camera setting to optimize the images.  But if I feel subjectively more attuned to the Leica versus the Nikon that may encourage me to shoot more often, and enjoying the experience in itself.  That 's part of the reason I still have the Q - the focal length isn't ideal for me, but the haptics of using the camera are unsurpassed.  I think in retrospect the same was true with my M cameras - I missed focus often, but adapted to a zone focus system and improved the number of keeper photos.  What I lost was the ability to get in focus images when using a wide open lens setting.  It's a skills thing, not a gear thing.  That makes me realize that if I want that look I may need to move toward an autofocus system, regardless of the camera brand.  
 

You've given me much to consider, thank you everyone.  Keep the thoughts coming, they are very helpful.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I am curious, when you used the Q2, did you try to set up the cropping in camera? Because that should make the viewfinder match the longer lens, so it should not be like working at 28mm. Even at 35mm, it is still higher resolution than the M or SL2S, so unless you shoot a lot at 50mm or longer, the resolution difference should not be noticeable.

Given that you said that you are a bit older and more of a hobbiest, I would strongly encourage you to just choose the camera that you find the most joy in using. The technical differences in image quality between all these cameras are not that visible until the cameras are quite stretched. If you are printing large, for example. I am also a big believer that one takes the best photos with the camera one likes to use the most. As a hobbiest, you don't need to prove anything to anyone. Just choose what you like!

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, threeseed said:

Weight: 835g versus 680g. That difference disappears for me the second you start adding lenses.

Hmm, not for me. Something for the OP to check for him/herself.. 

[ravinj]

I used the Z6 extensively + Z 24-70 F4 extensively during my trip to Yellowstone and Denali National Parks in 2019. That combo is hard to beat for flexibility, IQ and weight. Z6 also worked very well with my Zeiss ZM 85 F4 and Leica APO Elmarit R 180. The IBIS enabled shooting hand-held at very low shutter speeds. It is built very well and survived a dunk in a corrosive thermal pool and many days of rain too. 

I do have a SL2, primary reason being my M lens and SL prime collection. However, I now gravitate towards lighter gear and invariably Q2 is the one that gets attention - from 28-50mm (with cropping), I can't complain. I will likely sell the SL2 and wait till Leica brings out a 75mp+ upgrade. 

Your proposed SL2-S with 24-70 will not give you any advantage over your current Z6 setup. If anything, the Z7II with the latest crop of S pro Z lenses may be the path to go for an upgrade.

[XRayGuy]

I have an SL2 and not an SL2-S, but I also owned a Z7 and feel I that I should chime in here.

The Z7 was, to this day, the most disappointing camera purchase I have ever made.  Now, admittedly, I purchased it early on and as I recall I only had one firmware update during the time I owned the camera.  I had some of the same complaints that others had - the Z series lost a lot of the simplicity and ergonomic advantages that Nikon had in the DSLR era.  What made me sell it though was the autofocus, which was so poor I do not feel the camera should have been released in that state.  I do not generally shoot sports and I do not require my AF to be lightning fast, but I cannot abide inaccuracy.  When the camera tells me something is in focus, I want to to actually be in focus and the Nikon could not deliver.  I know Nikon has worked on improving this, and my understanding is that this is one of the reasons they put a second processor in the Z7II, but - and I cannot be more clear on this - the AF system in the SL2 is miles ahead of the Z7 because when it does indicate focus lock you actually achieve focus.

I have had a recent need to photograph birds and now own an A1 (after also trying an R5) and I prefer the SL2 for everything except the AF (and the low-light performance is better on the Sony).  I think these days in AF, Sony > Canon > Panasonic/Leica > Fujifilm > Nikon.  I hear the Z9 may have solved Nikon’s AF problems but I am done with Nikon and will never return.  It is a pity as the lenses are wonderful and probably come closest to Leica in terms of pursuit of perfection (although the newer Sony GM lenses are in that upper echelon also).

I remember when I had the Z7 that I would actually use my M if I really needed critical focus for something!

Edited December 27, 2021 by XRayGuy

[augustwest100]

I'm sensitive to weight (of my cameras not my human body). In my opinion the difference between an M and an SL body is more noticeable than the difference between an M and a Q body. My own very personal opinion is that the SL body balances very nicely with lenses like the Sigma 28-70 (about 470 grams), and that the bigger lenses like the 24-90 and even the 24-70 make it less comfortable for a whole day of use. It's a tough call, because the weight of the SL provides good counterweight to bigger lenses, but the overall size and weight then become less comfortable compared to an M body. An M10M with a 90mm Summarit is waaay lighter in my hand than an SL2S with the Sigma 105 macro (the closest focal length lens I have to 90). To the OP, I came from Sony to SL2S for the haptics and I've been very happy with that part of it. The menus are more clear, and the buttons are more solid. The EVF on the SL2S is one of the best as well. I identify with you on the difficulty of using an M for shallow depth of field, and I am trying to balance out my M usage with the SL2S. So far the weight is the only thing that gets in my way. Everything else is "just right."

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I still have my Z7 and SL2. Both are fine cameras but different.

The menus on the SL2/S are vastly better.

The SL2/S has the best joystick, EVF experience (regardless of resolution) and build quality on the market.

You won't notice any real world difference in AF speed in AFS. AFC is about the same as the Z6/7 before the last firmware update although the AFC experience on the Leica is not great. So *if* you shoot video, sports or BIF seriously and consistantly then you might reconsider. Otherwise it's unlikely you'll notice any difference. Bashing the AF is a favourite topic here.

The SL2/S is noticably heavier and there are none of the super light but excellent retractable zooms the Z system has.

The 24-70 is a very good lens but is identical to the Sigma version, which is cheaper.

The SL Summicron primes are adddictive, like crack. Maybe more so.

Nikon's flash system is VASTLY better than Leicas.

There are more L mount lens options than Nikon, currently.

Gordon

[KPD]

Good day.  I came to the SL2 after being in the Sony world for 5 years.  Had Canon's before that but never a Nikon.  Though I gave up several features with the move from Sony to Leica what I gained was a simpler interface that was consistent across multiple cameras in the Leica family (I also have an M10 and Q2 Monochrom).  And, yes, the SL2 can be very heavy when equipped with a lens such as the 24-90mm.  As someone else has already noted, using the SL2 with M glass does make it far less bulky and heavy.  I've just started using my M glass with the SL2. It is too soon for me to make a firm statement but I can say that this combination makes the weight a non-issue.  In addition the experience of the viewfinder makes a huge difference when I want to be sure that my focus point is where I want it to be.  Something else I've noted in my switch is that there appears to be a dynamic range difference between the Sony A1 and SL2.   I'm willing to admit that this may be more subjective than objective but I do see a difference. My final point is, as you've stated, there is something to be said for a camera system that encourages and even excites you to take more images.  This is something that is hard to put value on and one of the reasons I have truly enjoyed the switch.  I hope this helps.

[beewee]

I have a fairly wide extensive selection of M lenses spanning 18-90mm and both the M10 and SL2-S. After a few short stints playing around with wide angle M lenses, it was pretty apparent to me that if you want to achieve high micro-contrast, the SL2-S (and presumably the SL2) just won’t cut it. M lenses work best on M cameras and any improvements in ergonomics by adapting M lenses onto an SL body is compromised by the image quality.

If you want to shoot small primes on a SL body, get some Sigma i-series primes. They are small, compact, almost M-like in ergonomics, and will be sharper and perform better on the L-mount bodies then almost all M lenses with the APO 30 M being a very rare exception. Oh, and the Sigma primes cost about 1/10th to 1/20th the amount as a modern Leica M prime lenses.

Edited December 27, 2021 by beewee

[lencap]

Thanks to everyone.  You've all inspired me.  Just for laughs I took out the Q and took a few shots.  No real photography, just snapshots.  I didn't plan anything, just walking around and snapping whenever I felt like it.  I did several shots in "Auto mode", letting the camera decide aperture and other settings.  Then I shifted to manual everything, selecting all parameters myself.  The camera did a better job than I did, but the camera also defaulted to making the most useful picture given the conditions.  For example, it brightened some darker settings (shot in low light shortly after sunset) making those shots appear to be taken in brighter light.  This, as you know, is common for almost all Auto settings regardless of the camera.

I found that even though the camera Auto settings gave me good results, they was nothing creative about the process.  The camera did everything.  I then shifted to full manual.  I used the zone focus system to "preload" the camera for what I was about to shoot - typically f/5.6 or f/8.0 - and bracketed some different exposures.  There were lots of misses in the images, but there was also a better connection to the camera from a "I'm taking a photo not the camera" perspective.  I recalled how much I enjoyed that when shooting my M cameras, and how terrifying it was to do that with the M-A wondering how long it would take until I could actually see the developed picture.  

Basically this simple exercise helped clarify the "autofocus, automated image" versus the "I'm make a photo, warts and all" approach.  The results reminded me that while automation certainly gets a better result on a consistent basis, what you lose is the connection to creating something as opposed to recording something.  That was a valuable thing to remember.  I also again remembered how much fun it is to actually pick the aperture setting, look at the zone focus markings, compose an image and experiment with exposure, ISO and the rest.  

I'm not sure what I really rekindled, but it did remind me of the first time I used a rangefinder camera.  The lack of certainty and anticipation of "did I frame that correctly?"; "is the rangefinder accurate or will I have parallax problems that created a missed shot?"; "can anyone really focus a Summilux on the fly?"; and all the other things associated with mechanical versus electronic settings.  There's no doubt that the electronic aids in modern cameras create a higher probability of getting the shot you want, but at what cost in terms of creating something special?  It also made me better appreciate the "shoot wide open" mantra of many Leica owners.  There is something to be said for cinematic photos with nearly unlimited depth of field, but there is also something to be said for the "dreamy" look of a narrowly focused subject and yards of bokeh.  (Think Ming Thein versus Thorsten Overgaard).  That's something I'd lost when shooting with more automation than was available with 35mm film cameras, which I started with over 50 years ago.  I don't intend to go back to film, but I do now wonder if a more "analog" shooting style may be what I'm looking for.  By that I mean returning to the basics of composition, exposure, setting the controls to capture the look I want, etc.

For that type of photography I need to improve my skills more than chase performance.  As someone noted in these posts, I'm a "hobbyist", shooting for pleasure, trying to enjoy the zen of the total experience.  That's likely why I enjoyed the M series of cameras - they almost force you to shoot that way.  No zooms, no "what you see is what you get", no certainty of even capturing what you framed in the finder.  It's uncertain and creative.  The EVFs in mirrorless cameras create the potential for perfect framing and focus, but somehow, at least in my current thinking there's a price to pay for that perfection - it's the lack of spontaneity.  Both have their place, but now I'm wondering where I want to put my attention.  

I admit I didn't expect this when I posted, but I'm glad I'm looking at things differently now.  Thanks for the mind expanding comments, and I continue to invite any other thoughts you may have.   I also appreciate the comments about camera weight/size.   I remember shooting with my Hasselblad 503 years ago.  Holding those negatives was awesome, but shooting with that camera required skill and dedication.  It definitely wasn't a point and shoot, nor was it subtle.  When you took took a shot the camera would wake the dead, and if you weren't holding it properly all you'd have was a blur on the negative.  On the other hand, the few great shots you got had you hooked and coming back for more.  It was kind of like shooting a birdie as a 27 handicap golfer.  You only remember the great shots, not the duffs.  That's kind of how I'm feeling now, and wondering if the M may be worth reconsidering.

Thanks again everyone.

Edited December 27, 2021 by lencap

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[beewee]

42 minutes ago, lencap said:

Thanks to everyone.  You've all inspired me.  Just for laughs I took out the Q and took a few shots.  No real photography, just snapshots.  I didn't plan anything, just walking around and snapping whenever I felt like it.  I did several shots in "Auto mode", letting the camera decide aperture and other settings.  Then I shifted to manual everything, selecting all parameters myself.  The camera did a better job than I did, but the camera also defaulted to making the most useful picture given the conditions.  For example, it brightened some darker settings (shot in low light shortly after sunset) making those shots appear to be taken in brighter light.  This, as you know, is common for almost all Auto settings regardless of the camera.

I found that even though the camera Auto settings gave me good results, they was nothing creative about the process.  The camera did everything.  I then shifted to full manual.  I used the zone focus system to "preload" the camera for what I was about to shoot - typically f/5.6 or f/8.0 - and bracketed some different exposures.  There were lots of misses in the images, but there was also a better connection to the camera from a "I'm taking a photo not the camera" perspective.  I recalled how much I enjoyed that when shooting my M cameras, and how terrifying it was to do that with the M-A wondering how long it would take until I could actually see the developed picture.  

Basically this simple exercise helped clarify the "autofocus, automated image" versus the "I'm make a photo, warts and all" approach.  The results reminded me that while automation certainly gets a better result on a consistent basis, what you lose is the connection to creating something as opposed to recording something.  That was a valuable thing to remember.  I also again remembered how much fun it is to actually pick the aperture setting, look at the zone focus markings, compose an image and experiment with exposure, ISO and the rest.  

I'm not sure what I really rekindled, but it did remind me of the first time I used a rangefinder camera.  The lack of certainty and anticipation of "did I frame that correctly?"; "is the rangefinder accurate or will I have parallax problems that created a missed shot?"; "can anyone really focus a Summilux on the fly?"; and all the other things associated with mechanical versus electronic settings.  There's no doubt that the electronic aids in modern cameras create a higher probability of getting the shot you want, but at what cost in terms of creating something special?  It also made me better appreciate the "shoot wide open" mantra of many Leica owners.  There is something to be said for cinematic photos with nearly unlimited depth of field, but there is also something to be said for the "dreamy" look of a narrowly focused subject and yards of bokeh.  (Think Ming Thein versus Thorsten Overgaard).  That's something I'd lost when shooting with more automation than was available with 35mm film cameras, which I started with over 50 years ago.  I don't intend to go back to film, but I do now wonder if a more "analog" shooting style may be what I'm looking for.  By that I mean returning to the basics of composition, exposure, setting the controls to capture the look I want, etc.

For that type of photography I need to improve my skills more than chase performance.  As someone noted in these posts, I'm a "hobbyist", shooting for pleasure, trying to enjoy the zen of the total experience.  That's likely why I enjoyed the M series of cameras - they almost force you to shoot that way.  No zooms, no "what you see is what you get", no certainty of even capturing what you framed in the finder.  It's uncertain and creative.  The EVFs in mirrorless cameras create the potential for perfect framing and focus, but somehow, at least in my current thinking there's a price to pay for that perfection - it's the lack of spontaneity.  Both have their place, but now I'm wondering where I want to put my attention.  

I admit I didn't expect this when I posted, but I'm glad I'm looking at things differently now.  Thanks for the mind expanding comments, and I continue to invite any other thoughts you may have.   I also appreciate the comments about camera weight/size.   I remember shooting with my Hasselblad 503 years ago.  Holding those negatives was awesome, but shooting with that camera required skill and dedication.  It definitely wasn't a point and shoot, nor was it subtle.  When you took took a shot the camera would wake the dead, and if you weren't holding it properly all you'd have was a blur on the negative.  On the other hand, the few great shots you got had you hooked and coming back for more.  It was kind of like shooting a birdie as a 27 handicap golfer.  You only remember the great shots, not the duffs.  That's kind of how I'm feeling now, and wondering if the M may be worth reconsidering.

Thanks again everyone.

I think you’ve basically summed up what differentiates the M from other camera systems. At its core, the M is all about being in control and making conscious decisions on manipulating the camera in such a way to make the image that you envision. It’s not easy and it requires practise where you develop an intuitive connection to a lens and camera combination in relation to its haptics and the look of the image. M photography in the context of imaging making is like calligraphy in the context of typography. The tool is stripped to the bare minimum and it’s up to the person that holds the tool to develop the skill needed to get the most out of such tool.

In the absence of the willingness and interest to hone the craft, an M camera would be frustrating to use and produce poorer results than an iPhone. It is only when you spend the time and effort to develop the craft in using an M camera that you will be rewarded with its results. It’s a very unique style of photography which can be polarizing from a user perspective, especially those who have not spent hundreds of hours with the camera in hand. But when you develop that innate connection with the camera and understand it at an almost philosophical level, there’s no other camera quite like an M.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M10 + 24 elmar

Edited December 27, 2021 by beewee