I'll give my thoughts about the camera mounts at the end of this post, but first I want to explore some other points that have come up.
jlw said:
I was reminded that we are divided into: people who already use a DRF camera.
That's me...
I had assumed that the main thing that attracts people to rangefinder cameras was, well, the rangefinder, you know?
Not for me - I dislike it. I ended up using an R-D1 because it fulfilled other - more important - criteria. My ideal viewfinder is a 100% coverage split-prism SLR-type image, but without the prism. What this means to me is an electronic viewfinder (EVF), but perhaps technology hasn't caught up with my vision yet (or at least it's too expensive to put into a camera): I want resolution identical to an optical viewfinder and no lag time.
Compactness of the camera body and lenses.
That's important to me: I can put the R-D1 in one coat pocket and several lenses in another, or a very small bag. And it's more discrete than my previous camera, a Canon 10D (once, someone came up to me, looked at it and said "Mate, why is your camera so big"!).
Appreciation of a feeling of traditional craftsmanship and quality ... SLR design moved on to the era of plastic ... these cameras probably are just as precise as the old ones, but they don't feel the same.
That's another reason I bought the R-D1. Photography for me is a hobby, so I can indulge myself and choose a tool that I enjoy using: a tool that has qualities that don't necessarily improve my image making in any quantifiable, practical way.
I'm not saying that plastic is bad: I'm well aware that plastics in cameras often make more engineering sense than metal. This issue simply boils down to aesthetics and tactility for me.
(As a brief aside, I've heard criticism (usually by Leica users) of the cheap build quality of the R-D1. There are very few cameras built like Leicas, so comparing it to one is unreasonable. However, compared with modern "prosumer" dSLRs (like my Canon 10D), it's a revelation: things I expect to be plastic are metal, such as the knurled shutter-speed selector ring and the shutter button, and lenses are solid metal.)
Now, we come to the main reason I bought an R-D1 and sold my dSLR: simplicity. I find modern cameras, owing to their automation, intrude and impose on my image-making. Rather than walk to a better vantage point to improve the composition, it's easier to zoom in or out; rather than think about the light, I'd trust the matrix auto-exposure. After a couple of years with my 10D, I wanted a different type of camera: one with simple, and easily predictable, controls that I could dominate totally. Weegee said famously "I see the thing, I feel the thing, I make the thing." With a modern dSLR you'd have to add "And my camera interferes"!
You can of course turn off a lot of automation in a dSLR, use prime lenses instead of zooms, etc., but modern cameras don't make this easy: manual focusing, for example, is awkward, with no split prism and no depth-of-field markings.
My ideal camera would be a 1970s SLR such as my sister's Olympus OM-1N fitted with a digital sensor (I don't use film!), ideally with the viewfinder/prism mechanism replaced with an identical-quality EVF to make the camera yet smaller, but it must still - importantly - be manual focus. I don't mind auto-exposure as long as it's predictable (spot or centre weighted) and I can override it easily, but manual everything else, please. And dials rather than an LCD - analogue info is more intuitive (cf. digital and analogue clock displays).
The R-D1 body, like the Bessas, is based on the shell of an old Cosina SLR, so it's about the same size as an OM-1N. Thus, there's no reason* why a dSLR can't be built that's the same size as the R-D1, if they leave out what to me are unnecessary features such as matrix metering and 3,258 "picture modes". Manual SLR lenses, although larger than rangefinder lenses, are much smaller than modern autofocus SLR lenses.
[*Except, of course, that not enough people would buy it to make its manufature worthwhile!]
At long last, we've reach lens mount considerations. I personally like the M-mount as it gives me a wide choice of lenses, and this was another reason I chose the R-D1. Modern lenses have high contrast and very well-controlled flare, which, to me, can make images seem rather clinical. My day-to-day lens is a CV 35/1.7 Ultron - it's very good, and I appreciate its precision. However, I also use two 1950s lenses (Elmar 50/2.8 and 90/4) - and these lenses give certain photos more personality owing to reduced contrast and some flare; a lens can be
too perfect! A modern SLR locks me into using modern lenses only - messing around with adapters is possible but not very practical.
So, I'd only be happy with a new lens mount design if it was allied with a camera that allowed me to use old lenses via an adapter without compromising the function of the camera. The camera would also have to be small, and designed primarily for manual control (except for easily overridden auto-exposure - which is the setting I park my RD-1 on); I'd be happy with a rangefinder, but would prefer an SLR-type viewfinder (whether mechanical or electronic).
