>>3739378I feel like we're talking in circles here, my dude.
You're saying that it's easier to make good glass without a mirrorbox. Sure. I'll agree with that. That's also indicated by the glass available for (non-rangefinder) mirrorless cameras.
But what point are you trying to make there? The fact that it's easier hasn't resulted in either better lenses for rangefinders overall or better lenses at a given price point, so why bring it up as a supposed response to that guy's question?
