>> |
Anonymous
>>134063
1. in 1950s to early 70s, Leicas were THE camera of the professional news/rock/etc photographer (until the Nikon F came out). They were also used by HCB and other famous people, mostly cause back then they really were excellent cameras, well made and with great lenses. 2. Leica decided that rangefinders were the shit and ignored SLRs (ok, yes, they had the R, but have you ever seen one in use?) 3. Leica decided that since rangefinders were the shit and they weren't selling well, they ought to be expensive, so they started talking about how great and perfect and legendary and epitomized the M series was, while all the pros went on shooting with their Nikons and later Canons 4. fags with too much money decided that "if it's expensive and rare, I ought to have it" so they bought leicas 5. fags decided that they had to show WHY their new $5000 cameras with 1955 technology were entirely better than new Nikons, so they made up shit like "I can tell the difference between a pic taken with a leica lens and a nikon" and "leicas are just SOO MUCH BETTER for taking pictures of people" -- even though hey, it's all just glass and the film was 100% the same. 6. Everyone bought into the mystique that Leicas are somehow great and started applying that logic to rangefinders in general.
Here's the reality:
- rangefinders (film) are generally smaller and lighter than SLRs - RFs are quieter than most SLRs (no mirror slap) - ^ these make them good for street photography. - RFs are easier to focus wide-angle lenses, SLRs are easier to focus teles. You choose.
They're pretty, Leica lenses are very good, and I would love to have an M3 + 35mm summicron, but when you get down to it they're not really significantly better than any other camera. The M8 is so backwards compared to the new DSLRs it's not even funny.
|