I'm no Leica fan but why do you say that ... is this a reference to the X1?
The M9 is certainly out on it's own and nothing anyone bulilds short of a full frame DRF with M mount is going to affect sales of that particular flagship.
I say it in reference to the fact that Leica's M-series digital cameras: (1) are exorbitantly expensive; (2) are hard to obtain (supply chain is relatively empty, especially for lenses); (3) have relatively poor high-ISO performance; (4) have no live-view, and no ability to capture video; (5) violate the Barnack ideal by being bigger and heavier than they have to be in order to provide reasonable image quality.
Points 3 and 4 are especially damning, because they both have dramatic impacts on image quality.
[3] For shooting in lower light, IQ is critically influenced by two things: movement of the camera and subject, and focus error. You can use an ultra-fast lens, but these are the conditions where it's hardest to focus and where focus is also most critical.
[4] For imaging under less demanding conditions, IQ is still generally limited by the ability to set critical focus, and the absolutely best way to do that is by live view -- as Phase One clearly understands with their new touch based tap-to-enlarge interface. Similarly, the lack of live view precludes accurate framing, especially close up. Put bluntly, there's no reason to use
expensive fast lenses of 50mm and longer with a camera that can't reliably focus them -- especially under the very field conditions where lens speed is most useful.
It astounds me that it's 2011, and Leica can charge what they do for a digital camera with such glaring and obvious limitations. The other advantages of the M9 are obviously significant enough to create a market for these flawed and expensive cameras, enough so that Leica sells as many as they can produce.
But: imagine how cool it would be if someone made a
modern camera with most of the M9's good points, with many of the M9's very real deficits corrected, and sold it at a more reasonable price point! The X-100 suggests that Fuji has the engineering and design chops to do that. The question is whether they have the will to do it in a way that reinforces the strengths of the X100 design, and attenuates its weaknesses and glitches.
I'm delighted at the prospect of real competition from down-market that will light a fire under Leica's butt. If Fuji can continue to innovate at the pace shown by the X100, Leica's going to have real competition on their hands; everyone will have to step up their game.
And over the long run that should be a good thing for everyone, Leica included.
