> "I think there's too much focus these days on what you can get for the money, and not what you can get." Agree, but with the Leica T you're not really gettin

> "I think there's too much focus these days on what you can get for the money, and not what you can get." Agree, but with the Leica T you're not really getting much either. Even if it was priced at the same level as the prosumer Sony/Olympus/Fuji cameras it's still a dud. The body itself is immaculately crafted, that's to be certain - I've actually held one and it feels great. But the software sucks, the controls are awkward, the screen is mediocre, and basic functions of a camera like autofocus are slow. It's a showpiece, not a workhorse, regardless of the price. This isn't the Ferrari everyone likes to compare Leicas to, it's paying $300K for a Lada encrusted with diamonds. I'm not above paying for good design and manufacturing, but it needs to hit the baseline of being a good camera first. I'd buy a Leica M (well, if I had more money) but there's no way I'd touch either the T or the even-more-cash-grabby X-Vario. For another example of style-over-substance camera (or really just style-without-substance), see the Hasselblad Lunar.