Photon42

I am. My point is not to avoid lenses which have non-Leica parents. The point I was trying to make is that optically identical lenses are also attractive from a cost perspective.

The SLs are better than the Nikons if you want to use your M-Lenses. The Z6iii's autofocus will be better for anything fast but the question is whether you need this. The price is of course tempting - but only if you do need these lenses. I am sure they are great but you probably know they are based on Sigma lenses. Some actually say the Sigma 24-70 version II is better than the Leica (search for it). I finally sold my Z Nikon stuff and bought a used SL3 and some used lenses. YMMV.

Superglue is the cleanest option in my view

The 24-90 hood has a similar design as some of the S lenses. Glued / welded together horizontally. That's where they then crack. As opposed to most others, I like the original hood ...

You live in the US? I think you guys can order stuff, try it for 30 days and then send it back. I cannot do that here, but can ask the Leica store to let me try out a camera for a couple of hours, even days. Helps immensely forming a view before opening 7k. Phase detection AF tells the camera the focus direction and reasonably accurately the distance offset to bridge. Contrast detection does not do that (that's why we see pumping), but is more precise it the actual focussing. It is not uncommon to use both technologies in combination. I do not know what Leica uses for the SL3 and AF-S. I did use BBF for a very long time but have now migrated away from that. Face recognition and are good enough now for my purposes and actually after to operate with one button only. I can still move the focus point if I am on single focus. Tracking is also an often forgotten tool which works ok on not too critical stuff (like f 1.2 1m distance or so). Tracking is also continuously focussing.

If I understood the various interviews of Peter K well, they have essentially developed a platform for the APO lenses. This enables Leica to make the production process simpler and more cost effective without sacrificing optical quality or environmental sturdiness. The downside of that is that the length of the lenses is disproportionately pronounced for focal lengths around / below 50mm. With Sigma, Panasonic and others, we have options. And at least the non APO 35 and 50 are ok size wise.

I just bought the new 35 1.2 DG II. It is 2mm longer than the 1.4 and approximately 100g heavier. I think the weight doesn't bother me at all - had it a couple of times out but not for a full day. The predecessor would have been too much for me with around 1Kg and quite a longer size, too.

R2L offers the readout of aperture and lens information, but no digital aperture control. That of course only works with R lenses providing that interface (contacts). I think the Novoflex R2M adapter is sufficient. IIRC it is even coded as an R adapter.

Using M lenses on the SL system is great and finally pushed me over to sell the Nikon Z + lenses. On the last vacation I took the 24-90 with some primes. About 70% of the shots were done with the 24-90. There are only two areas where I can see primes for what I do: A special look / very shallow depth of field and compactness - both a good use case for M lenses. Image quality of the 24-90 is definitely good enough for everything except maybe some extreme cases. Maybe get a second / third battery with SL3. And if you don't need IBIS, switch it off. It makes quite a difference in energy consumption. There is an R to M adapter available (also from Novoflex), which may be a good alternative to the relatively expensive and clunky R to L adapter from Leica.

And a Panerai Submersible in Safari green

It just means an SL3 is now available in green, hopefully with a leatherette holding up to proper reporter usage.

They should have made the SL3S the reporter edition. That thing has content credentials.

war mein erster Gedanke - warum nicht die SL3S?

Offer one and find out.