.
It seems odd that the Fuji gets credit for its design (that copies the M)
Just me.
Well.... the Fuji doesn't have a MESSSUCHER nor does it have any native manual focus lenses, these are about the 2 things that make an M an M
To the best of my knowledge... RE their shared features, Leica didn't invent the optical viewfinder, didn't invent placing the viewfinder in the top left corner, nor did Leica invent the rectangle shape or the shutter speed dial or the aperture ring
The 'copy' tag IMO only persists because Fuji resurrected design and features once found on many cameras, but ones which were largely obsolete except on the Leica.
I don't doubt that Fuji saw a market for that type of camera (although by most accounts the original X-Pro wasn't a commercial success at launch price) but targeting a market share and copying an existent product aren't the same thing.
Devils advocate: The 240 however, brought features that Fuji already in place on the X-Pro (live view, an EVF, video - in fact with the multi function grip and EVF fitted the 240 is a LESS simplistic camera than the X-Pro1)
But no one says that the 240 copied the X-Pro. Why? Becuase (like Fuji the other way around) Leica weren't looking to 'steal' Fuji customers, they were looking to broaden the appeal of their products
My HUNCH would be that a few people have bought the Fuji and ended up getting the Leica they actually wanted, I bet that's not true the other way round. Also people have no doubt seen the Fuji in the camera store, gone home to read it about and discovered the Leica.
Fuji have inadvertently been good for Leica, they've raised awareness of the M whilst taking none of Leica sales, and anyone buying a Fuji to scratch a Leica itch will remain icthy - they haven't got what they truly want.
I get the sense that a few people own both a X-Pro and a M. That (IMO) demonstrates the differences and viability in each product.
