>>In theory a picture (or image) can be obtained with just about any camera. In reality we could shoot just about any image today with equipment made back in the 1960's and 70's.<<
That's quite true. I got into rangefinders as a sort of reaction to the F4 ... For someone who knows how to focus, gauge light, balance flash and catch peak action, there's much less need for autofocus, matrix metering, TTL flash, and motor drives. They have their uses, especially in pro sports and some high action environments (not always combat, by the way), but mostly the automation prevents a photographer from understanding what the camera is doing and why. It makes it easier for casual photographers but makes it harder to master the process.
Under our holiday tree sits a D40, chosen because its size and weight are so small (and obviously because it's so affordable). Our Canon Powershot G1 and G2 are still as good as they were five and six years ago, but the family is ready for a DSLR. (I'll keep using the Canon G1 because it's so portable, a visual note-taker). I like the D40 because it uses my 1960s lenses without a built-in meter, the same way I shoot my rangefinders. My wife will probably use the kit lens more often. When she's using the D40, I'll carry a rangefinder. But my new job is quite busy, with less time for film workflow when shooting family photos, and I got tired of waiting for someone to make an affordable digital RF compatible with my Nikkor lenses. I thought about a D200 for backwards compatability. But in the end I decided a small incident light meter is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier to use.
