pedromeyer: The more I read and look at the specs of this new masterpiece of deception, the new Monochrome Leica M9, the more I have to wonder the sanity of those who invest in this sort of equipment. Of course photography is the least of the issues at hand, as if it was really about making great pictures, what you need and want is the equipment with the greatest possible flexibility to offer you a wide choice of options from which to select the most appropriate ones according to what you are about to take pictures off.
Now to have the privilege to spend twice as much money for a fraction of the options, is about having to look in a mirror and ask yourself is you are totally deluded or what.
Take a 34 megapixiel file from the new Nikon with a Zeiss lens, and then compare it with the 18 Monochrome from Leica, and you have to scratch your head how they could even sell one camera body.
Furthermore, you have the choice of creating the image in b&w or color among two hundred other benefits.
My comment was not about presuming to know photographers equipment needs. The flexibility you need in your equipment is directly related to your budget and the scope of photography you do. If you do fast sports photography you certainly don't need a M Leica.
I was simply conveying my frustration with people who like to share their strong opinions of equipment they clearly have no experience with.
Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would just like to see more of those opinions be backed with a little more data / experience.
Another forum comment from the inexperienced. Though I obviously have no experience with the m monochrom, I do have extensive experience with a M9, S2, and phase one 180 back. Yes the price/value of state of the art is a personal question. But don't for one minute think the difference in image quality is simply marketing hyperboly. To acknowledge this level of quality is beyond your means is respectable. To dismiss it as marketing bs just displays ignorance.