Upload & Sell: Off
Same arguments, different thread, though seemingly a bit more terse this time around.
It would appear Leica's marketing department was ingenuous to numerous dedicated R lens owners when describing the M as an R solution. Sure, it's a solution in that the lenses fit with an adapter, you can focus them and take a picture. Will that all work in a manner many would like? Apparently not.
My guess, Leica being relatively small with somewhat restricted resources, was faced with a number of compromises, whether from CMOSIS, use of the existing Maestro processor vs the cost of implementing a newer version and possibly a lot of new code... Whatever the case, it's a compromise. Even if the live view implementation was as perfect as 2013 technology allows, it would still present compromises compared to an optical finder SLR. But that simply isn't an M solution.
Leica rolled the dice down the middle and seems to have missed the mark in the eyes of the traditionalists and those looking for a clean break.
Had Leica discontinued the M system instead back when R was shelved, I simply wouldn't be using Leica, period.
But they didn't and I, and apparently many others, were attracted to the M9 as a small FF alternative, with small, excellent optics. That seems to be where Leica is focusing with the M.
Most certainly there will be other MILC FF options available soon. Great if you want to adapt SLR lenses. For those who think MILC should equal small, that's a difficult option to accept, and hence the appeal of the M system. Never say never, but so far I wouldn't hold my breath that other MILC FF manufacturers will provide a friendly rangefinder lens compatible sensor solution. Chances are, Leica will remain the best option, whether or not live view works as well as it should. The bottom line for all of us, I think, is image quality, and that's where the M, M-E, M9, MM distinguish themselves in conjunction with comparatively small rangefinder lenses.