Just a clarification, I am comparing the GF1 to Leica Rangefinders (and more specifically, the M8) which have excellent rangefinders - big, bright and accurate ones. Other rangefinders can also be good, I once shot an indoor gig with a Yashica rangefinder with no trouble at all. Let's not do the whole film vs. digital thing here.
When I mean "responsiveness" I mean that when I press the shutter release, the picture taking happens. There is a tangible delay between shutter press and photo taken on the GF1 (and all non DSLR/Digital rangefinder) whereas the M8 is more akin to a DSLR.
Focussing on a x10 display may well be more accurate than a real viewfinder (though I disagree here since I am able to focus perfectly well with a real viewfinder, particularly a rangefinder one). So the x10 display is capable of allowing me to focus just as accurately. True. I also have to press whatever buttons to zoom in x10 and find the thing I want to focus on. With manual lenses, a real viewfinder is still faster when you want accuracy.
The GF1 is a fine camera, but I wouldn't see it as a replacement or equivalent alternative to a quality rangefinder such as a Leica. I've no beef with owners of either camera.
If you want to make a case for the rangefinder camera as a concept, please don't cite the M8. It is a horrible camera, a real low point in the sad decline of Leica, and a betrayal of all that is good about that great name. The sensor is too small with its 1.3x crop factor so it cannot take proper advantage of the lenses, and it has unforgiveable IR sensitivity issues needing an extra filter over the lens (that still doesn't fix it). It is a travesty, which the hastily introduced M8.2 also failed to fix :shrug:
The M9 on the other hand, makes a much better fist of it, with a full frame sensor that actually works
It is however, still a rangefinder camera which was conceived as a way around the fact that you can't see through the lens to compose a picture. History has proven that an SLR design is a much better way of doing that, and the writing has been on the wall for Leica since Nikon introduced the F in 1959, though Leica has stubbornly refused to appreciate this fact. Consquently, they have written their own death warrant and living off a glorious heritage cannot last much longer, if only because those people for whom the Leica name means anything are now literally dying themselves.
In particular, the rangfinder design suffers from parallax, which means it is useless for anything closer than two or three feet, and at the other end of the scale, 135mm is the limit for focusing and framing accuracy at long distance.
This does not make a very compelling argument for a popular camera, even if it was affordable. The M9 costs £5k without a lens, the 50mm f/2 lens adds well over another £1k to that, or £2.5k for the f/1.4. It's not even funny. The Leica market is now reduced not just to older people, but to very wealthy older people. It's not a recipe for success, even if the rangefinder concept was generally very appealing. Given that a) it isn't, and b) there are so many vastly cheaper alternatives about, well, there's a kind of inevitabilty about it all
