A film camera with negative film provides enough latitude to assure you of a good shot; a digital camera usually provides you with an LCD to make sure the shot is within the camera's narrow latitude.
As we know, E-6 film and digital capture have similar demands with exposure yet many of us have been using E-6 film successfully for decades. Bracketing was often employed when using transparency film, but it wasn't always possible depending on the situation.
e.g, I used only reversal film for a funded documentary project (thanks to the JP Getty Trust and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts) and did not have the luxury (events were unfolding too quickly in front of me) to be bracketing, checking exposure, or even looking at an LCD. I had no frames (out of hundreds of rolls) that were not useable. I think one gets to know their materials. And in commercial instances where time and big money are at stake, one did use Polaroid and performed snip tests with the film. There's no denying that the LCD is the equivalent of that, and that having it can be beneficial for sure. But nonetheless we lived without it for a long time and our production was still stellar (look at the history of images before digital.)
I have no horse in this race, but I don't think designing a camera (or any product) that attempts to make it more 'basic' and perhaps more tactile, etc., is always going to be a bad thing. Although in the case of this particular Leica camera it's really about the retail cost, its 'limited production run,' and what the real purpose behind it is all about. To discuss it in that way is interesting and it then becomes more about companies building limited specialty editions as an exercise and for marketing and publicity, etc.. But now you're morphing it into: "
people get very hung up on the orthodoxy of tradition vs. stasis vs. progress." That's also interesting but it's a phenomenon not limited only to cameras (or even consumable products.) And using film cameras as an example, the Nikon F4 and the F5 was being built, sold, and used while the FM/FM2 (and also the Leica M6) film cameras were being built, sold, and used. And Contax was building and selling the S2 and S2b after they had introduced the RTS III. Car manufacturers have done the same thing (selling 'stripped down back-to-basic' versions and which have a higher price tag.) This is nothing new.
In your subsequent posts, you seem to be dwelling more the 'missing' LCD aspect of all this. I'm getting a bit perplexed about the article itself and the actual point behind it. Maybe it's more about "the importance of an LCD screen with digital capture."
But to be honest, cut out the fluffy language employed and there's not that much really being said in the article that we don't already understand.
