When I was 9 or 10, my dad gave me a Ricoh rangefinder with a fixed lens.  I could feel the power.  You know as well as I do what it meant, no more 126 cartridges or 110 cameras.

“No, sir, Mr-Drugstore-salesman.  It’s 35mm for me.” I proudly exclaimed.

For some reason, I keep going back to that rangefinder mentality.  Now, I have my grandfather’s Leica M2 and an M6 that I bought from Bernie at Tuttle Cameras.   Before picking up that M6, Bernie and I discussed, at length, Zeiss’ to start a war in my photography niche.   Eventually, the camera and it’s lenses revealed themselves.  Some out-resolved the Leica glass in certain corners of the charts.  Some just had that spectacular Zeiss look.

Just read Rangefinder Forum.  You’ll get a nice cross-section of those dedicated to the glory of the rangefinder camera.  They wouldn’t hear any arguments of SLR vs Rangefinder.  No, not there.  After all, you heathen, SLRs are cameras that Satan’s spawn carry on Holiday.  Just look at what happens when you point that huge contraption at someone.  It’s the Hawthorne Effect in full swing, bitches.  On the other hand, rangefinders are objects of elegance.  Even a physicist would love it.  Rangefinders cut down the controls to minimalist ideals.  Who needs movie mode, when you just want a silky smooth 11×14 of minimal depth of field goodness?

Now, what’s this?  Zeiss?  A rangefinder, in the digital age?  This will get interesting.  I heard all kinds of arguments.  “It needs a battery, and M-3 doesn’t need such things.”  Ahhh, the pixel peepers roots were just forming.  Who cares?  Just shoot the effing thing…

Here’s their story.