IkarusJohn

There has been nothing in the SL2 or SL3 to tempt me away from my SL(601). It’s a fabulous universal mount for me. I’m sure that the SL2-S does things better, but I really don’t need it … Nice article, Thomas. Thank you.

I don’t think anyone can really know what’s going on inside Leica; but the question of compromise is very interesting. There’s the obvious challenge (and benefit) with focusing and framing, but there’s also the seismic shift in what you see through the viewfinder. My M-A has a beautifully uncluttered viewfinder; my M9 and M10-D (which has more eye relief with the improved viewfinder) stubbornly just have <.> and nothing else. The Visoflex has exposure simulation (which I quite like, not using flash), and everything else you might want and more, including diopter adjustment, preview of the image you’ve just taken, horizontal line and live histogram, all of which I assume you can cycle through somehow. What’s not to like? Unless you really like the uncluttered view through an M-A viewfinder. My suspicion is that the “youth of today” - the Sony generation - will feel very comfortable with an M-EVF, without fretting about pixel count in the screen, or refresh rates. That’s a world they’ve grown up in. It’s the EVF they’ll think is weird - no ISO, aperture, shutter speed or white balance in the viewfinder? And what’s that odd white patch in the middle and the funny little lines?

I can understand that - a smaller SL. That would have nothing to do with an M camera, other than being able to take M lenses with an adapter. We’ve been there already with the CL, TL2 and SL (in 5 different versions). I’ve never seen any attraction in mounting an SL lens on my TL2 (about the same size as my M-A). I don’t see the point, but what do I know.

I’m not in the market for such a camera, but I do get it. I have no issue using an EVF (both my X2D II and my SL(601) are EVF cameras, and I use the Visoflex with both my TL2 and M10-D), and I’m more than happy using the OVF on my M cameras. I don’t really buy the technical challenges outlined in this thread, nor do I think the L mount, the Q cameras or any other innovations have anything to do with this camera (though anything is possible with Leica). It’s all about using M lenses in an M body, but with an EVF. It will have challenges and advantages, like any other M camera.

The focusing accuracy is the same, regardless of the lens mounted - its impact on the image varies wildly! I use a Visoflex for my Noctilux and anything longer … This whole thread makes for interesting reading when all one needs to do is use your M camera with a Visoflex to get an understanding of what an EVF basement would be like (though, I should add that a Visoflex won’t fit onto my M-A and doesn’t work on my Monochrom). Jonathan Swift - “Falsehood flies while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Some how, I’ve managed to buy 2 copies of 100 Leica Stories. The second copy is unopened (still shrink wrapped). If anyone wants it, let me know.

Yep, photos taking too long to load, then just giving up.

I got half a dozen rolls a week or so ago, but haven’t had the time to expose it.

Maybe. Never seen it before. Simpler approach could be just to use M9M. When it was released it was just Monochrom (Henri), then we had the confusion with M(240), (246), (262), M-P, then 10-M and M11-M. I don’t think it matters what you call it, really; provided people know what you’re talking about. The naming of the EVF M, if there is one, is sure to introduce more confusion. I use my Monochrom a lot, and do no B&W conversions from my M10-D, SL or my X2D. I wouldn’t say I belong to a club, but I may be a dilettante, I’m not sure. Maybe I should ask someone. What I do know is that the files I get are flat, allowing for gentle adjustment in post, and the mid-tones and transitions are lovely - there’s probably a fancy word for all that. I like the output, and I use it a lot. Is that okay?

What’s an mm?

The XV II?

I’ve never owned a Lotus, but I get the attraction - a great history. I grew up with Land Rovers (mostly Series II & III) and the original Land Cruiser in the background - we rode horses, helped on friends’ farms (docking and gathering hay) and I once worked as a farm labourer as a student. The Land Rover was always there, simple and functional. Then in the early 2000s, my wife (at the time) bought a Defender for her paragliding business. I think the worst car trip ever was the 4 hour drive home from the mountain after a day’s skiing - I didn’t think my back would ever recover. What a terrible vehicle for the time. My Discovery was okay (again, paragliding, kite surfing, cycling, skiing etc), but a small boot for the size of the vehicle, tricky to drive at speed (2½ tonnes up high required careful management), tight back seat and at no time during the 6 or so years I owned it (before I wrote it off) did all the lamps on the outside work and I had to use gaffer tape to hold the fuel filler cover closed. Never again will I buy a British car, unless it is something made in the 1960s which can be repaired! Now that I no longer paraglide (post too many serious, life threatening issues, my bone density isn’t what it was), I don’t need the off-road ability so a simple oil burning station wagon suits me just fine; more boot space, a roof I can reach and way more comfortable and capable at speed.

I suspect it’s originally a bird game hunting expression - game birds will sit “in cover”, til they’re ready to make a flight for safety, and then they “break cover”. So, generally, it’s when something that has been kept secret is released.

I agree, Philip. Functionality is one thing (Defender, Discovery, Q7, Touareg etc), but the Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Ferrari SUVs, I don’t get. Actually, the Porsche Cayenne, I do get - it’s incredibly able off-road, but the boot is too small for my purposes (so is the boot in the Discovery - had one of those too). If I was back in the market for a capable off-roader, I’d look at the VW marques (Touareg, Q7 & Cayenne), but would probably settle on a Land Cruiser (not the Lexus).

Interesting, and plausible, if the camera actually breaks cover.