>see a vid of some fag sucking off a contax 2t he paid like a grand for >his main points were that it has an f/2.8 lens (that you can't set to f/2.8) and that it has half stop exposure compensation for over exposing images, and the smell>mfw when my canon sureshot I overpaid $40 for also has an f/2.8 lens and a manual ISO dial in 1/3rd stops from 50-400 (and 1,000 off on its own for some reason), meaning it literally does all the same shit for $40. also why the fuck does it go from iso 50 to 400 in 1/3rd stops and then just randomly jump from 400 to 1,000 and not 800? did 1,000 speed film use to be popular? pic related, technically a photo thread because its a photo I took
At least this thread isn't an ad...
>>4397664Yeah I mean a canon AE1 is does literally everything a leica m6 does, right down to only having 1/1000 max shutter speed. Canon ae1 is like 50 bucks and an m6 is 3 grand.
>>4397664Yeah developing black and white film at 1000 was popular. Diafine as the developer for instance.
>>4397669It has a longer flange distance and inferior lenses because of it, just like every SLR mount that predates modern computer designed optics. The best standard focal range designs that were made then were all for shorter flange distances. It also has softening from mirror shock and a viewfinder that can only be less bright than the attached lens
>>4397724>It has a longer flange distance and inferior lenses because of itYes this is technically true, two lenses built to the exact same optical quality with one having a leica mount flange distance, twenty something mm or whatever it is, and another having FD flange distance, which I can't remember either but it would be around 50mm, the lens for the Leica mount would definitely be better quality. Buuut in the real world, the lenses aren't that close together in spec and other factors outweigh this by far. The leica would definitely have better lenses, there's no question, but whether that's because of the flange distance? I'm doubtful. The number one factor in how good a lens is it's age. And there are much newer Leica lenses than even the last FD lenses. >It also has softening from mirror shock and a viewfinder that can only be less bright than the attached lensYeah, I don't know about this. Electronically controlled SLR's have a really soft shutter. Obviously it's not like a leaf-shutter rangefinder like Yashica or something, but it's still really soft. Especially if you remember to change out the foam in front of the focusing screen. Even on super slow shutter speeds I would be surprised if someone could prove this. And yeah the viewfinder is going to be darker, but in saying that the viewfinder on the SLR is sort of what killed the range finder. If you're shooting any focal length outside of the 80/50/35/28 range, the SLR will be better.
>>4397795Retard question but how the flange distance impacts on this? Aren't also rangefinder lens in general smaller? Wouldn't that impact on Quality?
>>4397804I'm not a lens design expert but as far as I'm aware it affecters wide-angle lenses more, because it reduces or removes the need entirely to reverse telephoto elements. Rangefinder lenses are generally smaller because of this short flange distance and also because the vast majority of them lack autofocus. You'd be surprised how much bulk autofocus adds to a lens.
