@boojum I've read what you've been posting about the X2D; let's just say that our decisions follow different principles, so it might be wise to agree to differ in some respects. I find the X2D very intriguing to a point, and I thought briefly about adding it together with the new trinity of lenses to my arsenal (over time - it's a bit steep to just go out and acquire). But ... no. Not for me.
When it comes to gear, I'm a user first and foremost, not a collector, and furthermore, "perfection" is defintely not on the agenda, just my personal joy and satisfaction. And realistically, that's something I have achieved in most respects already. Back when I bought into the M mount (with the Zeiss Ikon RF - film!), fascination did play a big part - but with digital Ms, user experience is first and foremost, obviously including results. If it wasn't satisfying for me to shoot them, I wouldn't bother, period. I certainly won't bend my knees to whatever megalomania is proferred, and I don't buy into Leica's superiority approach at all. But on that count, the same goes for Hasselblad!
A little context may help at this point: For my "modern camera" needs, the Nikon Z 7 II really does it all, more than I usually need, in fact. For day-to-day shooting, I can cover all bases relevant to me with the Z system, including assignments and travel. My current "favourite" EDC setup, the one I pick if I don't want or have time to think about it, is the Z 6 with 40mm f/2 - not top of the line by any stretch, but super-enjoyable, reliable and providing very nice results, much better than could be expected. Other such setups include the Z fc with either the Z 28mm or the Voigtländer 23mm f/1.2 (a real contender for "most rewarding setup", see below) and the Z 50 with the best super-zoom lens I've ever shot, the Z 18-140mm DX. If the weather gets really marginal and I want something small and portable, I usually reach for the Olympus OM-D E-M5 III with 12-45mm f/4 instead of a Z system combo; there's some nostalgia involved here because
was instrumental in setting me up with digital photography, but the E-M5 III is a very nice performer in its own right, not quite on par with the Z 50 in some respects (including IQ), but not far behind in most, with fantastic I.B.I.S. and weather sealing to boot, so it's really a no-worries camera. To sum up: I have great gear for fast paced shooting that offers at least very nice, up to and including superb results. I don't need anything "superior".
What the Leica bodies offer, though, is a completely different shooting experience, one I often prefer and sorely miss if I don't have the time and opportunity to savour it: slow, deliberate, creatively challenging - with the glass to match. The M10 provides the most compelling images of all my Leica bodies, even though I often reach for even slower and more bare-bones (M 262, M8) because that's what it's all about in a way. Now, the M10 is quite a nice preformer when used within its limits, and at times, these are actually part of the fun. However, the M10, good as it is, clearly can't keep up with the best of the 24MP sensor cameras in terms of file quality, especially when it comes to retaining highlight detail as well as low light performance (visual noise). And that's kind of a bummer, especially since some of my favourite lenses beg to be shot against bright light and in high contrast conditions. The M10-R, on the other hand, is actually really compelling in terms of highlight recovery (almost on par with something as spectacular as the old, but superb D750, a camera that still has its younger stablemates beat in that respect - not the Z 7 II, though) as well as offering very, very good high ISO performance, almost on par with the Z 6 that in turn is my best low light performer. So, in a way, I'd get a uniquely capable sensor in a familiar body - with all the joy and challenges involved that I associate with using a Leica body, only more so because of the resolution. I really don't need the latter - but it would actually add to the fun, not take away from it.
Finally, and I find that a very interesting observation personally, the Z fc comes close to bridging the gap between modern and "vintage" (for want of a better word): With the electronically coupled Voigtländer 23mm, the experience almost matches rangefinder style shooting (paradoxically so - but the focus indicator is actually nearly as quick and precise to use as a rangefinder, with added reliablility in some cases) while all the rest is done by a thoroughly modern body in classic guise. This is why I may hold off and see if Nikon actually try their hand at a Z f (FX) of some description in the near future ... In my case, even if they just took the Z fc and put in an unstabilised version of the Z 6's sensor, I'd have to own one. But of course, the real clincher would be adding in I.B.I.S. and the Z 6's EVF (plus a few minor refinements). And if they use the Sony A7 IV's sensor - oh, my ... If only I could judge the likelihood of that happening to a higher degree, I could stop dithering.
M.
