Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Doug H, Doug R, and Bud. Thank you very much for your responses and info. They help me very much. :-) Doug Herr wrote: >The old >prism was in poor shape so it was well worth the cost; it's now brighter >and more vibrant than my other SL's viewfinder, which has no obvious >de-silvering or other problems. I would assume it really is. I found that mine shows some flare in the viewfinder when I see strong light on it. >Congratulations on your SL purchase. An SL2 and an R6.2 as well! I'd be >interested to read your comparisons of the three bodies. Thanks. This afternoon I carried my SL and R6.2 and shot a couple of rolls in Marche de Noel (Christmas Market) for which Strasbourg is famous for. Although it may make little sense to compare a camera that is not in original conditions with another, I felt the screen image of my SL more pleasant to my eyes. The R6.2 has a very good viewfinder system with an Acute-Mat screen but has a blueish and darker tint with a bit rougher feel. In comparison with my SL2, the SL gives screen image with a similar character (I am not sure if the screens for the two models share the same material in the mat areas) but also with a little more blueish and darker tint. My SL is at least as good as a Contax S2 that gave me the best viewfinder image in my experience. I am now interested in experiencing the original and optimum quality of an SL, which would cost more than what I am now ready to spend with my "user" SL.... Cheers, Mikiro Strasbourg, Europe http://arbos.silva.net