I don't know that there's anything "mystical" about the RF experience (although I'm relatively new to it). To me, there are perfectly rational reasons for preferring RF cameras in some circumstances, and most of them (funnily enough) come down to the rangefinder itself (assuming we're talking about long EBL RFs):
.. an RF will focus more accurately than an SLR at "RF typical" distances
.. an RF allows effective manual focus in much lower light than an SLR
.. manual focus allows much greater control over the plane of focus than AF
.. but, unfortunately, modern AF SLRs are hopeless in terms of focus aids for MF
Then there's the availability for RF cameras of many lenses that perform well wide open (most RF lenses seem better than all but the most expensive SLR lenses in this regard, and the best ones seem Just Plain Better). All tied up in a smallish and easy-to-handle package.
To me that all adds up to good (one hopes) photos taken with precise control over focus using narrow DOF (in low light, or perhaps not) in circumstances where that would be difficult or impossible with SLRs, P&S etc. That's not all you can do with a rangefinder, of course, but its the main thing to me that's difficult to do with other types of camera (and not nearly as much fun).
All the stuff about mechanical vs electronic, digital vs film etc. kind've passes me by. You can get great all-mechanical non-RF cameras. You can get digital and film non-RFs (and, these days, you can get digital RFs). You can use manual exposure controls on the latest all-singing, all-dancing dSLR if you like. The controls aren't quite the same, but they're quite easy to get used to (one wheel for aperture, another for shutter speed - what's hard about that?). I'm quite happy with AE, motorised film handling etc. on my Hexar RF, thank you very much. And the lack of the above on my M3 doesn't bother me much either.
The only other thing that may be there with RF cameras, for me, is that I may be composing differently with an RF than I have with other cameras (esp. SLRs). But I'm not sure. The inside/outside the framelines in view, and all the scene in focus in the viewfinder, thing. I'll need to ponder and experiment more on that.
So, to me, it all comes down to the focusing mechanism. Accuracy and control. I wouldn't use RF focusing for action shots (catch birds in flight with an RF? maybe possible, but purest masochism) or for macro or for long distance, but within its appropriate range, as far as I'm aware, it can't be beaten.
And there's nothing mystical about that.
...Mike
P.S. As to P&S digicams - I've found the perfect one for me (for my uses, YMMV). Its any of the pocket-sized Canon digital IXUS models (digital ELPHs, I think they're called in the States). Tough stainless steel bodies. Mine is dinged up, its taken a dip in the swimming pool, it lives permanently in my pocket and suffers the consequences. It still works fine, and for what it is it takes a decent photo as well. Mostly its there to take photos of whiteboards, or equipment assembly and other boring things. But its also there if there's a photo I want, and I have no other camera with me. Mine is an IXUS 40 (SD300, in US terms, I think) and it works just fine for me.
iPods? I don't know from iPods. I'm not a pod person. I'm not even sure I approve of pod people. I saw this movie once...
