thighslapper

From my recollection the assumption has always been some form of hybrid evf that combines both optical and electronic displays like Fuji implemented. There has never been a very vocal request for a purely EVF M. This is typical Leica ..... wring as many variants as possible out of the original form factor and watch the well heeled jump for the latest model. Having said that, the Visoflex is a bit of a pain and I'd be glad to ditch it.... plus using a Noctiflex wide open is guesswork with just an optical VF.

As you have discovered, Leica is a way of life rather than a means of easily taking photographs. I finally threw in the towel due to the mechanical aspects of RF and lens adjustment which did not match my expectations for expensive precision optical equipment. Might have been fine in film days and for general reportage snapping, but for modern critical use I found it frequently frustrating. I have retained an M10M to occasionally remind me of how difficult and limiting manual RF use can be. Some people seem to derive a masochistic pleasure in making photography as difficult as possible but I have decided I'm too old for any more torture. If you want more 'fun' try getting some old visoflex gear and ancient lenses so you can fill an SD card with 'characterful' images. If you are lucky a few might be acceptably sharp and in focus.

I routinely use the latest AI version of LR denoise even on base ISO images from my 100mpx Fuji GFX There appears to be very clever sharpening as well as noise reduction going on and the images do improve significantly. They also seem much more resilient when applying shadow recovery and other processes that often cause artefacts and image degradation. I've found a setting of ISO/10 on the slider seems to be the optimum ..... although even if you inadvertently apply 'too much' the results seem much about the same. The file changes are even more marked with Fuji X-trans RAW files (the GFX is Bayer based) which have a notorious 'worm like' appearance which is very obvious when viewed at 200% and worsens with sharpening (*). Applying LR AI Denoise seems to completely eliminate this and greatly improves the files. I'm sure others may have noticed this but your post is the only mention of it I've seen anywhere on the web. (*) Fuji users have long complained about LR's poor rendering of X-Trans files, which in the past was even worse.

I think you are making a simple process far too complicated ...... I have had several books produced by Saal .... but I suspect the processes are the same with all the better photo book producers like Blurb (most reviews suggest little difference between the better printers). I've found the colours very true to a calibrated monitor if you soft proof with the supplied ICC profile (in fact the difference compared to my original LR files was minimal). The only changes I have found needed (based on books printed) is increasing exposure/vibrance/contrast a touch and sharpening a fair bit (printing knocks it back a lot) and using full size/res JPG's at 450 dpi. I found matt paper too too flat and low contrast, but the low lustre Fuji paper Saal use produces super results. Might be best to get something small and cheap printed as a trial and it will give you some idea of the comparison to your originals and take it from there.

Had it for a while before selling my SL system. Sharpness is exceptional but I found the overall look rather cold and clinical for some reason. AF on the SL2 was adequate but a bit clunky. Can't comment on performance on the SL3, though. I note that those currently selling state it has redesigned optics for the L mount and an improved AF motor .... so any issues I might of had may have gone. It is a big and heavy lens though, which meant I just used it for specific situations and didn't carry it around often..... although it is excellent value for money.

I've never been that convinced that increased resolution (24 to 60) makes as much difference as folk claim when it comes to handholding. 24mp roughly equates to the best fine grain 35mm film .... so handholding limits should be similar to that traditionally advised for various focal lengths Linear resolution is only increased by 50% or so when jumping to 60mp, so yes, handholding speeds will increase but certainly less than double. Ability to handhold low shutter speeds is very person and technique dependent and it could just be you are pushing the limits of what you are capable, rather than any issue with the camera. Having said that, the main reason I dumped the M digital series were the limits imposed by the rangefinder system and the difficulty getting all my lenses calibrated to work perfectly with each camera body (if more than one, or changed). Leica adjust to a 'tolerance', not an exact point so there are always discrepancies. That DOES show up more and more as pixel count increases. As pointed out above .... increasing resolution amplifies the limits of DOF or focus errors when viewed at 100% on a monitor .... but a lot of this vanishes at normal print and viewing sizes. My main camera is a 100mpx GFX and plenty of images with minor camera shake and misfocus are perfectly usable for print and internet use.

I'd agree it's probably over-compensated vignetting correction ..... as there is a faint similar circular artefact top left as well. The algorithms that do this clearly don't expect such extremes of ISO plus underexposure. Regularly on this forum in the past (with the M9 in particular) there have been complaints about 'sensor issues' etc. in circumstances of usage that the camera was never designed for.

My original M9 was a demo from Leica Mayfair and about -20% at a time when there was a long waiting list and it was almost unobtainable anywhere. It was advertised as 'as new, minimal use' and fully reconditioned. Unfortunately on the M9 you could access the shutter count ...... which turned out to be 10k + and there was dust in the viewfinder plus a couple of other minor issues. I argued that this didn't constitute 'as new' minimal use' and they kindly sent me a brand new M9. I have distinct suspicion that making the shutter count inaccessible in subsequent models had a lot to do with me getting a discounted 'queue jumped' new M9 .......

Done ...... but I fear the survey design will not return results that are that meaningful ..... no doubt that will become apparent when the thesis is submitted for critique ..... I am just reading ' May Contain Lies' ( https://maycontainlies.com/ ) which should be mandatory for anyone doing research or data analysis.....

I've always regarded it as a term in search of a definition and rather cynically assumed it was coined either in desperation or as marketing hype in place of trying to explain the nuances of an MTF graph. Perceived sharpness depends on contrast and that depends on the resolving abilities of the lens. Not sure where the micro bit enters into the equation.

????? I think everyone here has just pointed out ..... in their own way ..... that dogmatic adherence to either opinion regarding the original proposed question is flawed ...... and I don't think anyone has been aggressive or directly critical of anyone else's views. There is a difference between banter, discussion, and an genuine argument ....... most posts here are good natured .... even if opinions differ and very, very rarely seek to be acrimonious or antagonistic. I can't see anything here that falls into those categories.

The voice of sanity. I can feel my teeth grinding every time I hear those of a 'creative' bent belittling anyone that actually attempts to take an in-focus picture with a level horizon.......

This old 'Hoary Chestnut' again. I am both ..... they are not mutually exclusive. I also love gear, have a great interest in the optical, mechanical, firmware aspects of photography and how everything works. I strive to produce technically excellent images when I can and feel that the excuse for poor quality of 'because I am creative' just reflects laziness and lack of care. Musicians that can't play the right notes rarely get work just because they are passionate and creative. Photography can be both technically excellent and creative ..... and the very best is both. I peep the pixels but don't obsess about it and if the image doesn't cut the mustard as a creative endeavour it gets binned, regardless of how it measures on the technical side.

Having just been upbeat about it, some reviews do complain about their being less images than they anticipated and that those shown are rather small..... and the rather cheapo print and paper quality. It is mainly a Biog. so I suppose you can't have everything .....

No, but I have Gypsies and Exiles which are excellent. This no doubt contains a fair proportion of images from these, in which case you won't be disappointed.