Again, thanks to all for the comments, much appreciated. Ray, I made the usability comments about the Leica rangefinder format versus DSLR cameras since over the last few years my shooting has been exclusively with DSLR cameras. Getting back into that format from the M7 I did appreciate that for some types of shooting (rapidly moving grandchildren, capturing distance items with critical focus, etc.) the DSLR format does have some advantages over the rangefinder format. That doesn't mean that I don't like the Leica "approach", but rather that I realize that having the right tool for the job can make the job easier. Just like having the right tool in my toolbox makes it easier to tuneup my car.
On the other hand, there are clearly times when the right tool is a rangefinder format camera, and for that the Leica has the added advantage of being built to a high quality standard.
My M7 was sold partly because I didn't spend enough time getting to learn the format. In retrospect using film instead of digital images, at least for me, made it a bit harder to learn the rangefinder format largely related to the delay between taking the shot and seeing the result. And to be frank I didn't use a journal to capture the details of my shooting. So when it came time to analyze why my shot didn't work I couldn't easily relate my thought process to the image capture. That's one reason why I think the M9 will improve my shooting a bit - largely because my technique has improved by owning the M7, I've grown more disciplined in cataloging my critical shots, and with almost instant feedback between taking the shot and seeing the result I can more easily adjust technique to correct unintended errors. I can also get better feedback about critical focus more easily. These results would be even better with a higher resolution screen, but clearly having any screen with immediate feedback, at least for me, is a welcome addition to my learning curve.
In addition, having shot with a Nikon DSLR for many years I've learned a bit about digital imaging and processing although my technique still needs lots of work. And while the Nikon format was helpful it used a cropped sensor so my lens selection was more challenging, especially if I wanted to shoot wide. The result was that I used a zoom lens with varying light sensitivity instead of a prime lens with a fixed aperture. This limitation also slowed my learning curve since I was dealing with many variables when composing/shooting and processing my images. Again, with the Leica and prime lenses I expect to be able to reduce the variables and expect that my skills will improve by being able to focus on specific changes I'm making one at a time instead of clustered by having many factors change (aperture shift as I select different focal lengths on the zoom, etc.).
Finally, I realize full well that buying prior to a new camera release isn't a financially wise move, and for that I take responsibility. And as someone else has mentioned in this thread the Fuji X-E1 is limited to $1,000 in depreciation. As such it may be a supplemental addition to my Leica for times when I do need fill flash, or want to shoot with critical focus and would appreciate the EVF capability in a particular situation. That doesn't mean I don't like/appreciate the Leica, but it does mean that as the poster noted that for my toolbox Leica ins't the only option if the goal is to capture the image that I see in my mind's eye.
The new M sounds like quite a capable tool, but if the $1,000 Fuji serves the purpose my point in the original post is that technology advances increase my options, not limit them, and the only added cost is more rapid depreciation. That's a tradeoff I can live with, and I bet many others can as well.
Again, thanks to all for the comments - it helps me clarify where I should place my attention as I learn how to use my M9.
