The joke is of course is that the street photographers into the decisive moment chose the most compact, easiest loading, easiest winding cameras of their day.
It's not that they wanted quaint old cameras. In their time they were the absolute state of the art, with the cameras costing substantially more in relation to the average wage than they do now.
If these guys were shooting today they would have state of the art.
It's a nice myth that folk fall into, that it's about the gear. These guys were excellent photographers, they used the best gear of it's time with an appropriate approach.
I often feel that folk latching onto old tech or old working practices often do so to stand out, because all to often in this proliferation of digital imagary, where everybody is a professional on day 2, it's all they've got.
When I worked in camera retail, I hankered after a contax G2. It's collision of old aesthetic but with programme modes, af and the best build quality ever. I could afford a Ricoh GRS (loved it) but it was the contax I dreamt about.
I could afford a contax no bother these days, I'm no longer a student on part time money. I might buy one, because it is a thing of beauty, the pleasure of holding it, the sound of it operating, the lustre champagne finish.
Would it be a statement of intent? Do I want the hassle of using film. I have an equally adroit EOS 3 with some super lenses, I never use it.. could I justify the contax as pretty much a trophy? A trophy from a long lost war..?
Curious thing is despite loving the rangefinder with automation idea, the fuji x cameras don't speak to me at all.
They look great, the feel great, and their users tend to be evangelical. Just never ever considered it.
I love my M. I see that as a spiritual successor to a Leica CL.
Good photographer shines through regardless. I know its a gear forum, but I care more about where photographers get than how they got there.