Good discussion guys, let's keep it classy or easy going. I've read this fairly closely, not "word for word"... and I would offer a couple points I think not mentioned in favor of the SL. When first announced I was salivating over the Leitz 24-90mm zoom because it offers at least an extra 10mm focal length... really 20mm more than most systems 24-70mm "go to" lens. This comes down to "how you shoot", "what you shoot" and handling the lens may turn me off because of size/balance but for me and some other photographers I think this is a significant benefit. Shooting portraits or fashion I see it as a potential improvement in flow... not having to switch lenses as much. The other thing, if you are a working pro cannot be discounted in the Sony A7x vs. Leica SL comparisons is the twin cards. If it happens once in five years, I would spend thousands of extra dollars not to lose a whole cards worth of shots lost to a corrupted card. That may not apply to most shooters in this thread but it is an important point. These are pro-grade cameras. I guess this Fuji has twin cards, but it's not even out yet and that makes it a little unfair to compare with the SL. The value of medium format and the extra pixels if you are a pro shooter still depends quite specifically who your clients are. I haven't picked up an SL but I was looking at the S and the Hassleblad X-1D or whatever it is called recently. I think it has a nice price point. It won't do as many FPS as the S, but it's light, has EVF and I think synchs flash at all speeds. This camera's price pt. is closer to the SL than the S if I recall correctly. So again we're comparing a newer camera to a litter bit older one- a point for renting vs. buying if you are pro shooter. The other cameras that offer twin cards I guess are the top Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Personally, I've been a digital Nikon shooter and recently switched to Sony, RF M-mount buff among other 35s, and I'm not sure where I come down on my next digital camera investment. The last thing I have to add to this discussion is regarding a comment (I forget who made it) about Sony BSI sensor (behind Canon in pixels) as the "best". I've been led to believe the Nikon D5 is in a class of it's own for low light sensitivity. So be careful using "best". I think the take away here is that for some the SL is worthwhile, but for most it is not. And undoubtedly it is a great camera.