The first real camera I ever used was my Mother's Canon when I was on a trip in High School. I don't remember what kind it was, but it was a rangefinder, and I found it amazingly easy to use. Even though I had no clue about exposure, aperture, or anything, I managed to take perfectly good snapshots. I don't remember much about the camera other than it was almost positively a Canon. My mother doesn't remember the model either, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was a Canonet.
I have been very happy with my rangefinder experiences, but my current daily driver camera is a Canonet QL17, and thus lacks the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. All of the cool kids I know use SLRs like Nikon F series and sometimes a Pentax K1000 leftover from college, so I decided to give SLR a try. My wife's Pentax SF-1 has a broken mirror and would cost a lot more to repair than to replace, so I had to hunt out something new.
I didn't want to spend much money, as I fully believe that a camera is basically a box that holds the film and lens. Expensive cameras are just boxes with more gadgets and possibly more reliable mechanics, but I still think the lens and the film matter a lot more than the camera. If it's light-tight and the shutter works, I don't really care if it makes me look rich when I hold it. I do care about ergonomics and aesthetics, but I tend to find very pleasing and comfortable cameras without throwing away my cash.
So, given my self-imposed budget restrictions, I acquired a used
ProMaster 2000PK Super
(available used for about $75-$85 in excellent condition, with 50mm lens).
The ProMaster is a K-Mount camera body made entirely of plastic and some
sort of rubberized substance. The feel was nice, it was lightweight (a
benefit of being made from breakable plastic), and it took my wife's
Pentax lenses. I liked the built-in TTL meter, I liked that it had
shutter speeds from 1sec to 1/2000, and I really liked that it only
weighted about 13oz (370g). Here's a picture from the company's
website. Mine is all black.
I also considered a Ricoh KR-5, which was surprisingly similar and more sturdily built, and runs about $135 used. While at the shop picking up lens cleaner, I played with a K-1000 ($130) and even considered replacing my wife's dead camera, which my brother had used to show me some photography basics. However, the ProMaster seemed to be a good fit for a hobbyiest amateur like myself who was looking to test the SLR waters.
Using the included 50mm f/1.9 lens, I immediately ran a 36 exposure roll of TMax through it. The fit was excellent, the weight and balance was quite acceptable, and every feature of the camera worked exactly as expected.
I hated it. Immediately. I went home and gave it to my wife, who was thrilled to have it for her photography classes.
For one, I missed my old simple focusing methods. I'm not a real photographer, I'm just a simple guy who happens to like taking pictures. I don't take planned and posed photographs very often. An SLR requires too much manual involvement, while my rangefinder is great with simple zone focusing techniques. Also, I hated the noise. It was so LOUD! I thought that it might just be the cheap camera, but the Nikons and others are just as loud! Too many moving parts, all of them making noise. My two rangefinders are almost silent, just a whispered 'click.'
That brings me to another problem I have with SLR. I don't baby my equipment, and sometimes they get rough treatment when I travel or go camping. My wife's Pentax was fine until we were in Kansas on an 20+ day tour of Route 66. Suddenly, it had a mechanical failure that was later determined to be a mirror problem. I'm very glad that we had a backup camera.
Now, I'm not stupid enough to think that I will ever have a faultless camera, and I'm well aware that my cheap rangefinders are old and will eventually fail. I always carry a backup camera when I travel. However, it is worth mentioning that a rangefinder camera has very few moving parts and is very simple when compared to an SLR, even an older manual SLR.
For some people, like my wife, SLR makes a lot of sense. She takes mostly planned photos, she needs to know exactly how something is going to look through the lens, and she can afford to use a tripod all the time, to really frame a shot and carefully focus it, and the noise isn't an issue.
So, folks who love SLR are welcome to love and use SLR all they want. I'll stick with my simple and stupid rangefinders. Cheap ones, at that. If I'm going to spend a lot on a camera, it had better be worth it. A really sharp photo of my finger in front of the lens is still a photo of my finger.
Update
So, for various and sundry reasons, I picked up a Pentax P30t with a 50mm
f/2 lens. I ended up liking it. It's not too heavy, not noisy, and I
can even pretend to do zone focusing. I then picked up a 50mm f/1.4 lens
and some various filters, and it's gotten a surprising amount of use.
However, it's still just not right. I look at my requirements for a new rangefinder camera, and I simply can't afford anything close to having what I want. It seems that to be part of the rangefinder 'elite,' I must first pay a huge membership fee. I'll stick with my cheap rangefinders.