>>3370741>It's entirely about its uniquely weird ergonomics, if you buy it for serious picture-taking you're deeply deluded.Deeply weird ergonomics can be advantageous for serious picture taking.
For example: Shooting with a TLR or other camera with a waist-level finder will tend to lead people to shooting from a lower angle than if they shoot with an SLR. There's no reason you CAN'T crouch down a bit with an SLR, or any reason you can't bring a TLR higher up, but people generally don't. The result being: pictures taken on a camera with a waist level finder will tend to look different from pictures taken with an eye-level finder.
That subtle difference will make your pictures look different and that adds a layer of interest that they otherwise wouldn't have. Assuming you get everything else right, that will put your photo above someone who did everything right but shot with an SLR in the normal fashion.
Same thing with rangefinders. The way of seeing the world through a rangefinder patch, manual focusing, the weird mechanical shutter winding, and even its shitty low-light performance all add up to making you see the world a little differently and take slightly different pictures than you would with a modern DSLR. In a world where everyone's carrying a camera that can give you perfectly sharp, nearly noise-free shots at ISO 12,800, having a shot that's slightly underexposed and a little blurry because you're limited to ISO 1600 and manual focus will make your photos stand out.
