... it doesn't really look like a terribly large combination. my objective isn't to be super stealthy so no one will know i'm even taking pictures, but rather have a setup where i can have a camera that's less intrusive and intimidating than my DSLR.
however, my original idea was to buy just one RF and one lens, and that's it, but now it seems like it would be nice to have a second lens for when i want a smaller setup.
It IS a slippery slope.
I have the CV35/1.2 and the Ikon body. I also have a Nikon FE2 and F80.
If you really want to get into rangefinders, the Ikon is a great option. But, if you're getting into rangefinders purely because you think they're a more compact camera solution, versus your SLRs, you may want to reevaluate that. Side by side, the Ikon with 35/1.2 is practically the same size as the FE2 with a 50/1.2. the Nikon is a little taller, but only at the pentaprism part. On the sides, the SLR is smaller than the RF. The width is the same. It's really a wash.
As far as the lens goes, it's marvelous. But, it is large. Coming from SLRs and MF as i do, it's not a dealbreaker, but it does eliminate one of the more significant reasons why i wanted a rangefinder. So, recently, i bought the Leica 35/2-ASPH to use when i wanted a more compact 35mm. Slippery slope. So, now i have two 35mm lenses. And, i feel silly about it. And, the kicker is that i really don't like composing and focusing with a rangefinder....
I don't know, though, if RFs really are less intrusive and intimidating than dSLRs these days. dSLRs are soooo common. RFs are oddities. I live in Manhattan, and i don't even notice people shooting with dSLRs, but i do a doubletake every time i see a rangefinder, and even though i'm attuned to looking for them, they're still rare. I still haven't seen anyone using an Ikon in all of New York City! Besides that, if you're shooting people (where 'intimidation' might be an issue), it takes longer to frame, focus, recompose with an RF than it does with an AF SLR, or even a manual SLR. And, doing that with a moving target/person is problematic with an RF. Intimidation is mitigated by getting a shot quickly with an SLR, versus having to keep a camera trained on a subject for longer than the person is used to. If you're shooting 'street,' that's moot. But, then, the SLR can probably do that stuff quicker, more efficiently, and more accurately.
Nevertheless, if you want a rangefinder, get one anyway. Despite the 'drawbacks.' They're fun. They're beautiful little pieces of engineering. The lenses are great. But, be prepared to get 'involved.' I bought into and got out of rangefinders twice in the past. With the most recent 'buy-in' i promised myself it would only be for one lens. Now i have three, and one is 'redundant.' And, i want an 'old' lens now, that would also duplicate one of my current/modern lenses. Silliness.
