One of the edited parts from Jimmy Hughes review reads as follows:

[...]Henri Cartier-Bresson enigmatically described the Leica as “like a big warm kiss - a shot from a revolver - like the psychoanalyst’s couch.” It’s a camera that comes with a huge legacy. Many of the 20th century’s most iconic defining images were taken with Leicas. No camera brand has more mystique, more heritage, more romance.[...]

And that asks a big question of us today - is romance dead? It seems from this review that you've really got to love what the Leica offers to justify it. And maybe that's a buying decision wrapped up in romance than reality. Is that a problem in 2008?

Those photos in the review looked good.  Even on a poorly calibrated monitor.  Shame about the odd colour effects.

The problem with it is that unlike my Leica which has been going since the 50's (111f) and is still in regular use, the M8 is going to be outdated in only a few years.

To justify this kind of cost for this kind of product, it's got to have the kind longevity that a Rolex or a classic piece of hifi does - that could be a problem for it.

At least you can use your old lenses on it though.

I think that is the problem. Compare it with a Rolex, which is very inaccurate in time keeping compared to a modern watch. You can even buy watches recieving the time signal and as such update themselves. But why buy a chronograph watch that is not exact in its prime function which is keeping time? Back to the Leica, why buy one when results from cheaper manufacturer are superior?? Quarz technology was a great leveller for the watch industry I think Digital is a great leveller for the camera industry.

I now await comments to be shot down in flames and burn for eternity in the Leica critic's hell.

Well, film Leicas were never that far from the peak of what you can get from 35mm.  The coated lenses are all really good.  A good chronograph isn't that bad either.  My Omega hasn't been adjusted for 4 months or so.

I like the limitations of the of the rangefinders.  It forces you to be more creative although the format pushes you towards centrally focussed pictures.

Simon, you're right that that this is photography's 'digital watch' moment.  The quality end needs to find a new direction - maybe with some modularity that allows upgrades on a standardized platform.

I agree with John S here. More so than with other cameras, a rangefinder demands monogomy. It requires you to have an intimate knowledge of what your camera and lens can and can't do. This only comes with familiarity and practise.

I myself use quite a few cameras (of late, mostly DSLRs), and find it fairly straightforward when going between them. Sure, there are differences in handling and usage, but broadly speaking the experience is much the same.

But, when I pick up the Leica M8 - especially after not having used it for a while - I really have to stop and think about what I'm doing. You get so used to zoom lenses and AF, it can be difficult to go back to a fixed prime lens and manual focus. It requires a very different approach.

John S mirrors Henri Cartier-Bresson, who famously talked about the Leica as an extension of his mind and eye. However, to achieve that sort of rapport, you need to be very familiar with the camera. You need to feel totally comfortable with the way it feels in your hands.

Most of all, you need to 'know' your lens so you can position yourself to get the shot. Some old Cine footage of H C-B taking pictures showed him tip-toeing back and forth like a dancer. He was moving all the time. This goes against the 'modern' approach, where you stand still and just zoom the lens to get the desired framing.

J M Hughes