- Mantra #1 "FF bodies are too Expensive and will stay that way for ever and ever > and ever because the sensor is manufactured in a special magical kind way that > prevents yields (whatever they might be) ever hitting levels suitable for mass > production" ....
Sony A850 = Launch MRSP $2000
Yes, that is expensive.
You can get an APS-C with better performance, more features, higher build quality and in a smaller package for less.
Sure. And an Optio W60 costs even less.
No one has said that the performance with old lenses would be horrible,
Oh, plenty of people have said things like that. And I think you know that.
just that "digital ready"-lenses offers better performance.
Actually, the often-spread nonsense is that "APS-C" lenses on "APS-C" are better than film lenses on FF and that you need superexpensive modern glass on FF to equal that.
And yes, the 24x36 lenses are more expensive. Just compare the APS-C 16-50 f/2.8 lenses with 24x36 24-70 f/2.8 from original manufacturers.
When will we please stop to compare lenses that offer very different DOF control as if they were equivalent.
The APS-C 16-50/2.8 is equivalent to a 24-75/4 FOUR! in FOV and DOF. Guess which is more expensive.
And Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is clearly less expensive than their 28-70 f/2.8 ever was.
When will we please stop to compare lenses that offer very different DOF control as if they were equivalent.
- Mantra #3 "FF bodies are enormously huge and heavy [...]
The statement was about 24x36 DSLR's.
...
Leica M9: 139 x 80 x 37 mm, 589 g
The Leica M9 is not a standard 24x36 DSLR with mirrorbox and 100% optical viewfinder with phase detect AF in the optical prism. It also does not have the space consuming in-body sensor shift stabilisation system.
No one said RF and SLR are the same. But the comparison shows that the M9 fits into the same space as a film M. Whether or not it is a RF or a dSLR is not really relevant: For both systems the space between mount and sensor/film is taboo during operation, no matter if film or digital.
You forget that the Leica is a rangefinder system.
You compare apples and oranges. That is quite unserious to do.
1. Comparing apples and oranges is easily possible and can be
very illustrative.
2. he compared dRF to aRF and dSLR to aSLR.
The Leica M9 is not a DSLR, it is a digital rangefinder.
Look at Sony, Canon and Nikon - none of them has made a compact 24x36 DSLR,
Yet!
At the moment, FF is just breaking into "consumer level". Pro SLRs need to be big - that's what the marketing offices believe.
And, you forget something here.
Oh, just a tiny little thing. Nothing serious, nothing to be bother with.
If you have bucket loads of money that is.
The Leica M9 is expensive , it is indeed very expensive.
It is a Leica, what did you expect?!
And if you compare it to other high-res FF systems, you will see that it is smaller, lighter, quieter and so has unique selling points.
Think of Mr. Reichmann what you will, but he thinks the M9 is quite a good price:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml
Also, as PP said, the price myth is already being tackled by the A850. The M9 is here to tackle two other myths: Size and angle of incidence.
--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage:
http://www.JensRoesner.de 
'
