M10 should be like the R-D1!!

I'd actually go a different way, if I could. Here is what I would want in an M10:

• CMOS or interline transfer CCD to allow liveview, particularly a histogram, and an electronic shutter that is totally silent

• Higher frame rate with that electronic shutter--no reason 5 fps wouldn't be easy

• Better high ISO performance in terms of both noise and, particularly, dynamic range

• Slightly thinner body (like a film M)

• Lower cost--go ahead and make it in Portugal if that will save a thousand Euros

• Saphire crystal over the LCD like the M9P

• Improved auto white balance

• Larger write buffer

• Better battery life (would probably come automatically with a CMOS chip)

• Some basic weather sealing--nothing fancy, but I'd like to feel more confident in a light drizzle

• A light meter that shows my selected shutter speed in the viewfinder when in manual mode--I hate the little triangles

• Display of the selected ISO in the viewfinder

That's about it. These changes would all make an M10 a better camera without, in my opinion, changing its "soul" at all. I don't need or want higher megapixel count--we are already well past the point that the vast majority of the images I take are limited in resolution by either diffraction (above f/11 or so) or by technique (either camera shake or focus). I also don't need a bigger or better LCD--suppose I would take one if offered, but I'm much more concerned with image quality in the DNG's than on the LCD. I don't need or want autofocus. I also don't care about LED frame lines--if I'm really concerned by critical composition, the liveview would cover that requirement. Frankly, though, I'm happier just choosing a focal length and perspective that has a little extra room and then cropping as required by my choice in aspect ratio/paper size. There's easily enough resolution that I don't mind throwing away a touch--others may well disagree.