Genius. And so true.
What do you mean, almost

It's not supposed to be perfectly clear. Ground glass always has a slightly roughened look about it.

And the slower the lens, the grittier the viewfinder will look.

Put a 50mm F1.4 on the front, and it will look very bright and almost clear.

Whereas a F5.6 zoom on the front, and it will be a lot darker and grittier.

A ground glass screen, by definition, has to have an image projected on to it that you can look at.

Perfectly clear glass cannot fulfil that function.

This post is a great example of why the moderation policies as often applied here drive me bananas.

This would be interesting if you had the freedom to speak.

As it is, I simply don't know enough to read between the lines, and I don't have the energy to try and work it out.

Edit: on re-reading, I assume you meant the Fuji from earlier?

This is the thing though. It's not just about the images. It's also about the history, the tactile experience of the camera, the heritage, etc, etc.

I've never held a Leica, but I know enough from other spheres to understand the emotional depth that the great marques bring to this sort of discussion.

Aeroplanes are my thing... I've never flown one, but I've often stood next to a Tiger Moth, and I experience a kind of reverence. Similarly Spitfires. I only ever want to visit the Imperial War museum at Duxford if I arrive by air, and feel the touch of history as I pass through the gate marked 'Pilots and Aircrew only beyond this point'.

I can imagine it's a similar kind of thing with some cameras.

I don't think they render colours as nicely.

And they turn the wrong way.

I very nearly was, but I thought that was just too obvious. I did have to restrain myself, I must admit. I do think you're nuts (in the nicest possible way!!), but if I may elaborate...

Well I don't think anyone's disputing the viability, unless by viability you mean profitability.

It's clearly viable technically - Leica is making it, and even if it isn't actually profitable, it's a hell of an advert for the brand.

Doubtless there will be cachet associated with owning one, since they will appeal to only a small proportion of those that can afford one, let alone of the total population of camera buyers.

So I don't think it makes sense in this case to divorce the concept from the brand.

Would I want a big bulky dSLR that could only shoot mono? Definitely not. Would I want it if I didn't have to pay for it, and it was a small, slim, beautifully made piece of German craftsmanship, redolent of a bygone era, yet still classy and cool? Almost, and definitely yes if it could do colour.

The fact that it's Leica makes it closer to desirable for me - and if a very rich guy gave me one as a gift, I'd certainly take it as an opportunity to try and develop my mono skills*

But unless I was a millionaire, I think £6k is nuts.

All that said, I genuinely celebrate the fact that some people are nuts. If they weren't, there would be no old Rolls Royces, no airworthy Spitfires, no flying Lancaster, and no Vulcan. I honestly admire the nutters everywhere that maintain the existence of beautiful and expensive pieces of fabulous, heritage-laden craftsmanship, that keep such traditions alive.

_________

* if I'm honest, probably until I realised I was rubbish, in which case I'd flog it and buy some lenses

If I had a ton more money than I do, I could see myself getting an M9. I love the combination of all manual yet modern and fantastically well made.

But B&W only? I'm one of those in the article that just doesn't get it, so no.

You might want to have a read here.

Better still, get over to SRS quick and buy what you need first.

Failing that, I'll soon have a pristine DA 17-70 in the classifieds for a lot less than the £500 quid or so it's going for new.

eBay, at a guess.

Unlikely, Mike's prices are pretty reasonable.

I suspect you'll be answering a lot of others' questions in no time!!

A warm welcome from me.