Dear Peter,
Fair do's on most of what you say, especially the bit about '3 reliable digital Leicas': I think that you and Paul Stewart would be in an undignified melee for the first three to be issued to Fleet Street. I forget if it's three-quarters or four-fifth of Paul's awards (including second and third places) were won with Leicas.
But I don't agree that it's Leica telling us what to buy. Tragically, I think it's ourselves. Not you or me or indeed Paul but the market-place. Photography is 'equipment driven' as never before, and the catch is, there aren't enough Old Fogeys arguing (as they did in the 1930s) that quarter-plate Sandersons were all we needed. There's a lunatic pseudo-professionalism which assumes that expensive and above all NEW cameras are better.
There are also the undoubted advantages of digital: instant access, very low materials costs. You and I come at this from different directions -- Fleet Street and advertising -- but neither of us would dispute the enormous savings of time and money.
Leica had to make what they could, and although the M8 was a long way from perfect, it was almost certainly better than nothing. Also, it was almost certainly good enough for most applications. For the last decade or two I've referred to myself as a 'paid amateur' because that's what I am, most of the time: I don't HAVE to produce shots the way you do now, and I used to when I was shooting advertising. Or food, though that was a bit different), and the only way the M8/M8.2 have let me down seriously was a shoot 200 miles away when an SD card went bad; not Leica's fault, though a dual SD card (even in an accessory baseplate) would have been nice.
The M8/M8.2/M9 aren't 'designer' cameras. They are 'user' cameras. Not as perfect as you (or anyone) might wish, but merely the best you can get of a particular kind, much like a Breitling. Sure, they've a long way to go before they're a Breitling, or even an Omega Seamaster 30 (my watch for the last 40+ years). But then, the Leica III had a long way to go before it was an M3, and fitting a digital sensor into a body that's too small ain't easy.
I really believe that an M8/M9, with the compromises involved in a too-small body, were a vastly safer bet than a re-run of the M5, andI think Leica took the same gamble.
Finally, I believe that dear old V.B. (I never met him) wrote his column untl he died, and I hope I can do the same!
Cheers,
Dear Roger,
Any melee Paul would certainy win as my 'deportment' is far less.
(About as politicaly correct as I can be !)
Peter