Going digital

M8 is also a crop sensor camera. Only the M9 is full-frame amongst the digital models you mentioned.

Yes but 1.3 is not as bad as 1.5.

Okay, first what you do not want to hear. Get an M9. Please hear me out. You are not going to be satisfied with the current crop of digital minicams. You have said as much. M8s are fine cameras in spite of quirks and glitches. The M8.2 is the M8 you should get if you get an M8. But you are not going to be completely satisfied. This means you will spend more money in the end satisfying yourself. Getting the M9 will save you money and frustration in the end.

The M9 is full frame. It is reliable. You do not have to spend a fortune hunting down and buying UV/IR filters. You probably will not need an M10 whenever, if ever it comes out.

I think waiting for the next camera is nuts. Get the best now and enjoy it.

I only wish that the M9P was out when I was M9 shopping.

Second. The M8.2 is a fine camera. It has a crop factor of 1.33. Pared with a full frame camera it is great to use. So if money is a factor, get it. And have fun collecting UV/IR filters.

After you use an M8 you'll pine away for an M9.

I've heard rumor that the Sony NEX 7 doesn't do so well with vintage RF wide angles. The same scuttlebutt says the 5N is better in this regard. Just what I heard from several sources. I have tried the NEX 7 but only with Sony lenses and it's a very nice camera.

I am very happy with the X100 and will seriously look at the new Fuji. With three Fujinons for that I might never mind leaving my Leica and Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses for film only.

I was seriously thinking about an M9 a few months ago, especially a chrome M9P, and know that I won't get an M8. Like you I am waiting for the M10. Changing system is what would bother me with the Nex. I just can't be bothered. You almost had me buying a Contax G kit recently, but I didn't for all sorts of reasons. I'm glad because I really like what Fuji is doing and the new X-Pro 1 might have everything I want. If it weren't for the Zeiss 50 C Sonnar I might be happy to retire my current lenses, but I'm going to stay with film long term I suspect.

Alex makes some very good points. Mike Johnston's TOP site had his hilarious letter to George about the 30 steps to a reasonable kit and how much that costs in comparison to just buying the ideal kit at the outset.

If you are interested in going digital with Leica lenses, I heartily recommend the Ricoh GXR with Leica M module. I have one and it has been a revelation with my Summicron 35/2 ASPH, CV 28/1.9, and Canon LTM 50/1.8; excellent interface, good focusing aids, no anti-alias filter so that one can get the best detail out of their lenses at the cost of having some moiré in their pictures at times, and because it uses an EVF and sees whatever the lens sees, one can use a host of lenses from other manufacturers on the camera. I have an Olympus adapter for my GXR-M and am thinking of getting an M42 adapter as M42 glass is usually cheap. The only thing I am missing, apart from Leica build quality (and the Ricoh is no slouch), is full-frame.
Check out the Ricoh forum at Dpreview, there have been some comparisons done between the Sony 5n and the GXR.
If you're seriously considering the M8, I think it would be important to consider the GXR as it is also much cheaper.

There is a mirrorless forum here in PN recently created by Josh. Check it out if you haven't, Sony Nex 5n compared with Ricoh GXR here...

I've had an M8 since it first appeared and an X100 since it first appeared. Since getting the X100, I haven't used the M8. I was (am) disappointed with the M8 because although it is capable of producing excellent images, you really have to work at it with post-processing, filters, etc. M8 JPGs are hopeless. With the X100, images are excellent straight out of the camera...even JPGs. IQ is stunning. Fuji makes excellent lenses (think Hassy lenses) and I'm certain that the new X Pro 1 with its new lens line-up with be very good. In addition, the M8 is very noisy and the M9 not that much quieter. The Fuji is completely silent. Auto-focussing is pretty good and, for me, not slower than the manual focussing of the M cameras. That's just me I think. I was on the verge of buying the M9 when the X100 was announced (fortunately for me money was not a major issue) but I'm glad I waited for the X100. A friend who is a professional photographer has also ditched his plans for an M9 and has ordered 2 X Pro1s with change!

You are left with the extra cost of the Leica name. It's not true that Leicas don't go wrong. My M8 had to go back for modifications withing 6 months. So there is a fair premium for the name.

Harry, as a researcher you have obviously looked at this carefully, and I can confirm from my own M8 experience the need to send it back for repair. I am quite sure that these are not common cases. Leica did the repair, and more in my case, even out of the guarantee period. While I cannot agree fully with you about the jpeg performance (especially the very good fine jpeg), I think one has in any case to go to RAW for best quality with just about any camera system. The absence of an anti-aliasing filter on the M8 is an advantage for better resolution for a given sensor size and, in a less popular sense, for those wanting to do IR B&W photography (an advantage to the add-on IR blocking filter need with wide angle lenses) without investing in a modified DSLR. Fujifilm is a huge company with much muscle in the medical, film and digital businesses, and of course lots of resources. Good old Leica, an (if not the) innovator of 35mm photography, has always stayed small and hands on (a bit like my own miniscule but dynamic Albion alma mater). The result, like Zeiss, has been cutting edge optics, hand assembly priority and lens quality control. They may be playing catch-up in the digital field (vis-à-vis the new Sony sensors, Nikon D3x, etc.), but if you have several M lenses and/or want full frame use, there are not too many options. I agree that the prognosis for the Fuji changeable lens digital augers well. My Fuji 6x9 and its fixed lens, although somewhat outdated technologically, is a fine picture-making device at a bargain cost, analagous to your X100. I admit to a penchant for tangential discussion...