>>4143412And just because a genre is vast, doesn't mean you have to like it. Remember that kids. Maybe someone just doesn't fucking like
street photography in the style of bresson
landscape photography in the style of adams
so maybe they just won't be happy with your stupid fucking
rangefinder-style semi compact camera that's a pain in the ass for anything but run and gun instinctive shooting at f/11
expensive high-resolution system that shits out 100mb raw files
Also as always remember this: Photographic equipment went well beyond the level of technological sufficiency ten fucking years ago. $2099 isn't even what you have to spend to shoot tack sharp images for all but the extremely large prints intended to be viewed from a foot away. You could do that with $750.
>The f1.2 SLR lenses were mostly about brightening the viewfinder, not shooting wide openIt was because older lenses were always softer wide open, at whatever wide open was. So an f1.2 would be sharper and have fewer aberrations and less vignetting at f1.8 than an f1.8. You didn't shoot it at f1.2. You also shot film, so you couldn't edit those flaws out.
Lens design has only recently made nearly perfect lenses wide open and it's really only worth a shit for shallow sky astrophotography meant to be blended in with landscapes that are shot stopped down.
