Ok, Damien, I’ll play … Only 'cos there’s nothing on the TV

Answer to question:

Full-frame digital M could/should appear first: if it's a poor camera it'll destroy Leica almost overnight. If it's a good one almost every M-user will want one and most would probably buy one. Size is constrained only by the lens design (backfocus), and isnt' a critical matter.

A digital-R should be the 'new R3' - that is a Canon-Leica collaboration. But there are some really big issues to address with an AF-capable (presumably) digital-R compared to a 'simpler' manual focussing digital M.

However, both are high risk strategies in so many ways.

I want a full-frame digital M (FFDM) that renders satisfactory super-wide images with lenses from 28mm to 12mm. If I can get satisfactory quality & resolution for exhibition work I really won't care too much about the size of the sensor. Cumulative cost is a big issue, so I will want to use lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss - without undue technical or performance compromises, etc. But I also want to use all my old M & LTM Leica, Canon, Konica, Nikon, and Voigtlander lenses without cropping, so full-frame inevitably becomes the holy grail.

This is what users on various forums are shouting for, but should Leica take any notice? After all, most of 'us' are more committed to the secondhand lens market than the new lens market - clearly not satisfactory for Leica Camera AG - enter the Summarits.

I also want more functionality in an M9(etc) than the M8 offers, like evaluative metering & AF confirmation. Technically a full-frame digital-M sounds like a bit of a nightmare regarding integration of M lenses, especially wides. It would clearly be expensive to develop, but could have a potentially large, well-established niche market of M-users willing to upgrade to a digital body. Return on investment would probably be fair, since the product life-span could be quite long, unless Zeiss or Voigtlander queer the pitch with a full-frame digital-ZM or VM first ... and providing there are no more technical glitches.

A digital-R is a different ball-game: put bluntly what's the point? Is it just pandering to the vociferous minority, or is there really a viable market for yet another expensive pro-spec DSLR? I don't think so.