Oh Puhleease...

Really, a max of ISO 2500? That's somewhat pathetic. Still, I guess they can't have the 'economy' [cough] model over-shadowing Big Brother's truly pathetic low light performance. Fuji (and now Sony) are kicking Leica's butt completely on the camera body front. I think they're going to need to do better than this to retain market share. Once Fuji releases a FX sensor X-Pro1 equivalent with a Leica mount adapter, Leica body sales will fall off a cliff...

yes please!

I am sure Leica knows the market otherwise wouldn't be so successful.

The indications are....

that Leitz are formally admitting they overpriced the M9, which is being discontinued and replaced by this cheaper machine-that does exactly the same thing for less.

Or that like computers they have become cheaper to produce as the technology is mastered over time.

I would like to have the relatively astronomical cost of their lenses explained, as they are far easier to designed than those for DSLRs.

I used to use these things, but honestly cannot imagine doing so now. There is something hideously limiting about fixed focal length lenses. They are the visual straightjacket those who preceeded me are still stuck in, and will die in, I dare say.

Why pay more for so much less? Snobbery and elitism, tout court!

Is the M9 overpriced?

Not sure about that, although it *is* beyond my budget range. As to the lower pricing of the M-E, my guess is Leica has already recouped R&D costs for full-frame M development, so is now able to offer models at a lower price.

Leica M flagship pricing has since doubled from the M7/MP. I guess they're leaving that market range to Fuji now. Sensible decision, since the sub-$3,000 segment has crazy update schedules.

Fuji doesnt have a digital rangefinder - it has a digital rangefinder-a-like (or rangefinder-wannabe, if you want to be discourteous). Is the Fuji X platform a viable replacement for a Leica M camera? Maybe to some. The package is nice, but I still find their focusing system clunky. And that's where no one can beat Leica yet. You'd need a real digital Contax G2 or Zeiss Ikon to do that.

Economy models

Leica made a cheaper, lower-spec model from 1930 until 1988. The Standard of 1930 and made until just after WW2. It was followed by the 1c/1f/1g, these latter models did not have a viewfinder. These were followed by the MD/MDa/MD2. These did not have a viewfinder or rangefinder too. They were intended for use with a Visoflex reflex housing and long lenses, or clipped to a microscope. I use my MD with a Visoflex and 280 mm Telyt lens at cricket matches. I use the MDa with a 35 mm lens and viewfinder on the top, I also have aMD2 model with 21 mm Super Angulon and viewfinder. They are half the price of equivalent M cameras and far better condition.

Leica M-E is repriced

Many here who have not shot a Leica and many who owned a Leica but then carried away by the Spec's Leica M from 8.0 to the M-E is a great camera. To produce it in Germany and then when the volumes are small it does cost. But, to get what it does give you in a picture the Japanese camera's are yet to Match. The camera is simple and keeps to the basics of a artist's tool. All those use non-leica also should be happy that the Jap's gave them a camera to use so, all camera's are good it is just an individual choice. In an MP3 age we still have Vinyl's which are more expensive and they generate analog sound. Life is about choices and we need to have them, and not shoot down to a minimum.

M-E Overprized?

At a value of £3,900 plus lens, the M-E is still beyond my budget! Considering that an M9 is valued at £5,000 makes me wonder if I will ever make the passional decision to get one new.

Then perhaps the entry level Leica still remains the aftermarket Leica, no different than the old adage coined by the Porsche salesman, the first Porsche is always bought used!