>>3742016>while I agree the difference is negligible by most metricsI mean, another issue with the original question
>>3738617 which I was responding to:
>Is rangefinder glass of higher quality than SLR glass?is that "higher quality" isn't a well-defined metric. Things like rendering, contrast, color, bokeh, etc are all very subjective, so someone like
>>3737679 >>3737680 >>3737681 might not like the look of images that other people think are amazing.
Which is why my argument was very explicitly (as stated in
>>3739317) that you can't say "rangefinder glass" or "slr glass" is definitively "higher quality" because there's too much rangefinder and slr glass in the world of vastly differing quality, both high end and low end and everything in between, to make any sort of blanket statement. If I'd thought about it a little bit more, I also would have explicitly mentioned that a lot of that answer will depend on subjective factors--looking back at my post, I didn't, and also it looks a lot more like I'm saying "No, SLR glass is better" than I had intended, which is also not correct.
(I'm also not saying that Leica's higher prices aren't necessarily justified. My sub-argument there was simply that the comparative ease of making lenses for rangefinder systems is not reflected in Leica's pricing)
