>>4495849>it can't be bad! it's expensive! SOUR GRAPES!it's bad and expensive. also, you're not rich.
>>4495647>>4495647 nailed it.leica is not the apple of cameras. leica is not the BMW of cameras or even the mercedes of cameras. leica is the gibson electric guitar of cameras.
objectively, their products are bad. quality control is bad. the design itself is bad. the ONLY reason people use them is to imitate famous people from a golden age of the art - now a lame hobby - who had to use them or got them for cheap at the time, in the 50s and 60s, and struggled to find an alternative in the pre-internet world. anyone could make something better, and the dwindling minority of faux status signalers and boomers would say "it has no soul" and keep consooming limited editions.
-on leica, and gibson.
if the concept itself were worth a shit the pixii and pixii max would be outpacing leica in sales. everything leica releases is plagued with a very high rate of firmware bugs and hardware failures. not "you have to do regular services!" bmw unreliability, more like panasonic or sony unreliability where random electronics fail or the shutter disintegrates. leica's customers dont care because most of them don't actually use their cameras. bad concept bad execution, it's all about the cargo cult.
>rangefinder pros: i can uh, anticipate outside the frame>everyone else: *opens their left eye and applies the bare minimum of visual-spatial intelligence*>rangefinder cons: everythingfor many photographers the selling point was "their focus rings have a shorter throw than other guys" which was artificial and easily fixed later. now it's just cork sniffing and finger fucking: the brand.
