As for hybrids, no thanks. I don't even like the LE display of the shutter speed at the bottom of the viewfinder on my Leica and much prefer the match-needle on my old Leica M5 of the clean finder of a Leica M2.

I like a camera that looks, feels and operates like a camera instead of a computer. I had an A7sII for a while and didn't like it. I tolerate the Nikon Df, but hardly love it despite it being the best thing going for using vintage Nikkor primes with full-aperture viewing and proper manual focusing (I had mine modified with a split-image focusing screen from a Ninon FM3a). The Leica SL was better than the A7sII for feel, but it still is more computer than camera.

Its the same reason why I prefer primes over zooms, won't wear a digital watch and prefer to shoot with a revolver to an automatic despite zooms being more versatile, digital watches being more accurate and automatics holding more bullets; as I don't base my preferences on specs or price.

I've tried Fuji's hybrid viewfinder and its better than a pure EVF, but its no optical rangefinder. When I hold the Leica (film or digital) in my hands it inspires me to shoot. It is a visceral and tactile pleasure to work its controls, and without any automation beyond shutter speed (I rarely even use that) I know that when a shot comes out just right, that it was my skill and not "the computer" that is responsible, just as when something isn't right I have nothing and nobody to blame except myself.

You know what else? Since moving to the M-D model without even an LCD I find that I take far fewer pictures, but at the end of the day have far more "keepers".

Back to specs, Leica's new M10 is "better" than my M-D on any spec sheet except for battery life. I'm not upgrading because my M-D is already "good enough" in image quality, and better at not looking or feeling like a computer.

Not as much as I like the constant, real view through my Leica M-D's optical viewfinder with infinite depth of field and viewing OUTSIDE the frame so I can see things as they enter and leave the capture area. I also didn't like how as I stop down the lens, things got grainy due to the EVF having to gain-up. Most importantly, I like manually focusing using the superimposed images on the Leica optical rangefinder, which to this day remains THE most accurate focusing system for wide-angle lenses, right up there with lenses up to 50mm and not far off with lenses up to 90mm. Since I shoot mostly with 28mm and 50mm lenses and favor street photography, the Leica M is about the best camera going. I look at my subject, instead of at my subject ON TELEVISION as I would with even the best EVF.

Don't get me wrong, EVFs have advantages. They just aren't as important to me as the advantages of the optical viewfinder/rangefinder on a Leica M.

Yes, the one in the Leica SL, which is considered the best on the market.

I prefer optical.

A "checklist" implies that one buys on specs alone, but if I had to quantify my last two purchases (Leica M-D and Nikon Df) into checklists they would each be very short, with it quite difficult to list five features.

For the Leica it was:

1) Optical rangefinder
2) Optical rangefinder
3) Optical rangefinder
4) Clean ISO 1600 for color and 3200 for black and white.
5) Full frame

Obviously, that checklist is easily satisfied by any digital Leica except for the M8 and M9, and the lack of clean ISO 1600 is why I upgraded from the M-E (M9), which I was otherwise still delighted with, to the M-D, which I am also delighted with.

For the Nikon:

1) Clean ISO 6400 for color and 12,800 for black and white
2) Optical reflex viewfinder
3) Easily uses vintage Nikkor prime lenses maintaining infinity focus and exposure metering (automation not required)
4) Interchangeable focusing screens (split image for manual focus)
5) Full frame

The Nikon Df fails on interchangeable screens, but since there are aftermarket screens for it I give it a pass. The Canon 6D also qualifies, and was my previous SLR. I only upgraded to the Nikon for the slightly better high ISO performance and more importantly for the full-aperture metering with Nikkor primes. For use as a modern DSLR with AF and/or zoom lenses I actually liked the Canon 6D more, but since I no longer own or use any AF or zoom lenses (not counting the ancient Nikkor 43-86/3.5 version 2 sitting in the cabinet that I almost never use) AF performance or convenience with zooms doesn't make my checklist.

I have the 24-120/4 that was meant for travel, but honestly have never used it (it came with a camera body). Every time I travel, I take two or three primes, usually a 24 (Nikon) or 28 (Leica) and a 50 and never really wish for anything more. For traveling light I split the middle and just mount a 35 (or stick with a 50).

I should pack up that 24-120 for sale.

Just as the 6D was basically a 60D with a full frame sensor.


Oh, yes, the full frame sensor is most definitely worth the extra money.

I don't know or care. I don't use the aperture priority mode very often and wouldn't miss it. But since it's just another click on the shutter speed dial I wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but would t pay extra to remove it.

Now removing the screen, JPEG capability and auto-ISO setting cost exactly $800, which is the difference between the M-D typ 262 that I bought and the more conventional Mtyp 262 that has a screen (but still no live view or video).

My camera body was $6000, has ZERO autofocus points (no autofocus at all) AND NO LCD. In fact, the ONLY automated feature is shutter speed in aperture priority mode. Hell, it won't even do auto ISO or shoot JPEGs, only Raw.

Oh, as a rangefinder it won't work with zoom lenses either, but then, I have no desire to use zoom lenses, or autofocus, or to shoot JPEG.

Features per dollar is NOT how real photographers pick cameras.

Innovation is not the most important thing in this industry. Image quality, ergonomics, responsiveness, even just the way something looks and feels (Fuji has done well here) are quite important.

Ask any Leica owner how important "features" are.

Words of wisdom.

Its a very nice upgrade from the original 6D, with no price increase. Swivel screen, higher resolution and better (though not top-line) autofocus. It is, at least on paper, improved in every way.

Were I a Canon FF shooter looking for an entry-level body the 6D2 would only face competition from the original 6D or a discounted 5D3.

I owned the original 6D for about four years and was very happy with it, shooting with some excellent L prime lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.2 and 135/2). Gradually I stopped using autofocus and started to use mostly vintage manual focus Nikon prime lenses, the interchangeable focusing screen and low-light performance of the sensor was the major selling points, along with the light weight. My 6D was always fitted with the "Precision Matte" focusing screen that really improved manual focus accuracy, and eventually I replaced that with a shaved-down split-image screen from a Canon 1D-whatever (www.focusingscreen.com sells these).

My daughter developed an interest in food photography, so I put the Precision Matte focusing screen back into the 6D and gave it to her along iwht my only remaining autofocus lens, the surprisingly good 50/1.8 STM. I will buy her the 100mm f/2.8 L Macro for her birthday in November.

My plan was to replace the 6D with another one. The 6D remains perhaps Canon's best low-light DSLR for manual focus, but seeing a good deal on a Nikon Df (which Cholly should hate even more with its 16 megapixels and complete lack of video mode) I switched to a Nikon body. Had the Df been less expensive at release, I would have bought one right away.

I don't know if the 6D2 has interchangeable focusing screens, but I do know that if I still shot autofocus my main camera body choice today would be between the original 6D and the 6D2, and most likely I'd go for the original as I always shot center-point anyway.

I think the 6D2 and 5D4 (also lacking 4K video) must be like catnip to this guy.

A neighborhood stray perhaps?

Dude, did Canon kill your cat or something? Get a life.