I've been doing a ton of reading on Rangefinders. I've never used one, never even touched one. I was on the verge of spending fifty or a hundred bucks for a cheap classic setup, just to have the experience, in case I decided that RF shooting was not for me. However, I've decided that possibility is remote, so I will put together funds for the setup I want, and buy it as soon as I can. At this point, I'm 99.9% sure the system I want is the R3. Possibly the R4, but my question is the same in either case: do I get the A or the M? With my SLRs, I've always been a full manual shooter, but lately I've done some shooting with two classic cameras, most notably the Pentax LX. The meter is so good, and shooting in aperture priority is, surprisingly, my preference with this body, as well as with the Contax RX. So when I consider the ease of being able to adapt to rapidly changing situations, and also the quieter shutter of the A, I'm leaning toward that model. However, I like the idea of a fully mechanical camera, and I'm perfectly comfortable with manual operation (though of course I've never done this with a rangefinder). Yet taking into account where and when I shoot, and all of my available options (I generally have at least two cameras in close proximity, often a bag with batteries, film, memory cards), being able to shoot without a battery doesn't really resonate with me as an important feature. Again, that pushes me toward the A. But what I don't know is this: can I expect there to be a difference in propensity for failure of a mechanical vs. an electronic shutter? And, if I have an issue, would one be likely to present a higher repair cost over the other? My instinct leads me to think that an electronic shutter could fail at any time, with no possibility of repair, but that a mechanical shutter might stray in accuracy over time, and require calibration.