>>3393528>So why use a point and shoot over a real rangefinder or something?If you're just taking photos of hanging out with friends or casually going about your day then it's a bit liberating to have an autofocus camera with automatic exposure, a fixed lens and in-body flash that you can fit in your pocket or hang around your neck with no issues.
>I mean I know it’s even smaller than a rangefinder but the glass tends to be slow.A lot of point and shoots have f/2.8 lenses. Not the fastest but it'll get the job done, especially with a built in flash. Even f/3.5 isn't so bad.
>Plus the electronics will eventually die and you’ll be left having to get a new camera.Yeah but that's life. Most of what you own is gonna break down and have to be thrown out eventually. I paid $40 for
>>3393282so even if it only lasts a year (though I'm betting it'll go for 5 minimum) I feel like I got my money's worth.
>If you get a manual small rangefinder it can last literally forever and in case of a Leica with AE it will outlast you because there will be parts and repairmen for decadesThat's one way to go but so far I've never found an individual camera I've been so in love with that I'd want to turn it into a lifetime investment. And if I did atm it'd be an SLR, not a rangefinder. I got pic related for $20 and it's kinda interesting but I haven't yet understood the hype behind rangefinders. I'm considering trying out the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII so maybe that'll change my mind.
