>>4397724
>It has a longer flange distance and inferior lenses because of it
Yes this is technically true, two lenses built to the exact same optical quality with one having a leica mount flange distance, twenty something mm or whatever it is, and another having FD flange distance, which I can't remember either but it would be around 50mm, the lens for the Leica mount would definitely be better quality. Buuut in the real world, the lenses aren't that close together in spec and other factors outweigh this by far. The leica would definitely have better lenses, there's no question, but whether that's because of the flange distance? I'm doubtful. The number one factor in how good a lens is it's age. And there are much newer Leica lenses than even the last FD lenses.

>It also has softening from mirror shock and a viewfinder that can only be less bright than the attached lens
Yeah, I don't know about this. Electronically controlled SLR's have a really soft shutter. Obviously it's not like a leaf-shutter rangefinder like Yashica or something, but it's still really soft. Especially if you remember to change out the foam in front of the focusing screen. Even on super slow shutter speeds I would be surprised if someone could prove this. And yeah the viewfinder is going to be darker, but in saying that the viewfinder on the SLR is sort of what killed the range finder. If you're shooting any focal length outside of the 80/50/35/28 range, the SLR will be better.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/p/

Thread:

>see a vid of some fag sucking off a contax 2t he paid like a grand for >his main points were that it has an f/2.8 lens (that you can't…

>see a vid of some fag sucking off a contax 2t he paid like a grand for
>his main points were that it has an f/2.8 lens (that you can't…