@ Juan - It's not a film v digital thread. I'm not a film basher at all. However, to me - and to Bill's initial question, and as others have alluded:
1. Rangefinders were/are/remained popular for certain types of photography because they were more discrete than other types of cameras... Hence, this forum' popularity.
2. However, technology has eclipsed the advantages of using them for this kind of photography...
1. Fast autofocus (and innately small "film plane") negates need to shoot at F5.6 for DoF
allows you to better shoot blind from the hip...
2. No need for film + gigabites of storage on a little chip + decent (lately) battery life to allow for volume shooting, no delays to load camera...
3. No shutter = completely silent operation. No noise at all. They're so quiet, in fact, that a fake shutter sound is added to let the user know if you've taken a pic. This feature can be disabled.
4. ISO is now variable, and the little cameras have overcome their major drawback - the ability to shoot in natural lighting w/o a flash. Multiple point intelligent metering allows for perfect exposure 98%(?) of the time. Many cameras have image stabilization (not the F20 but it uses another method...) negates the need to shoot at 1/30th to avoid camera shake.
Old school was to shoot at F5.6, 1/30, with 400 speed film in your camera. How can it be argued that the ability to shoot with a variable ISO, with a completely silent camera that weighs a few ounces, with a tiny camera the fits in the palm of your hand that has a lens that collapses right into the camera, that fits in a shirt pocket - no problem (with a decent built-in flash if you need it - yet), that you can take anywhere, that can rapidly auto focus, that can accurately set metering and exposure - all in less than a second, is not a better tool for street photography than an old rangefinder? Add to this the incredible flexiblity to do virtually anything in post... including making the output resemble Tri-X with grain added, or even add bokeh (though admittedly that takes a little work and is not always practical)?
The quality won't be as good if you pixel peep. It will look virtually indistinguishable to film - to my eye, on prints up to 8X10.
The aspects you mention are more important in other kinds of photography - not street photography, which is all about "the decisive moment" and composition. You simply don't need that much control for this... In fact, manual control gets in the way.
If your photography is about optimizing sharpness, dynamic range, tonality don't shoot digital or small format film. Neither digital nor small format cameras - including Leicas, come close to medium format in these areas... Shoot larger formats.
These are the reasons why digital has destroyed small format - even those "soccer moms" know this... Maybe they're the smart ones?
The reasons we (self included) continue to shot with film gear is the following:
A. We fashion ourselves as "photographers", have a certain image we want to project, and need to be seen with certain gear. We "get off" when people ask us "Wow... what camera is that Oh, Mr. So-and-so, are you a photographer? And we tell them about our darkroom and how we "still develop black and white..." blah, blah, blah...
B. We simply like the charm, or the tactile pleasure, or the nostalgia of older cameras. They're essentially toys - not tools.
C. We couldn't afford these cameras when they were new when they were "the cat's pajamas" and now that they're obsolete and we can afford them. We're like kids in a candy store and get "GAS" and buy up scads of them...
D. We like the manual "craft" for shooting film, developing our own stuff, and making our own prints.
E. We're really collectors but would never admit it openly.
F. We've always shot film, are set in our ways...
G. All of the above to varying degrees.
And there's nothing wrong with A,B,C,D,E,F,G! But let's be intellectually honest. The technical advantages of which we speak are largely rationalizations for A,B,C,D,E,F,G! - at least as far as small format is concerned.
