Maybe you should go back to the M9 just for the way it handles. Unless ISO is an important consideration.
That's a revealing point, though: isn't the rangefinder-style of camera supposed to be made in heaven for 'street' guys and, consequently, isn't great high ISO quality pretty much paramount?
I can understand using a less than 100% frame-finder for street, where I suppose you have less than wonderful opportunities for exact framing and leaving a bit of extra space around the shot isn't the end of the world, but to condemn the M9 to static landscape-style work, tripod-bound as it would be for maximum quality (applicable to all formats/cameras anyway) strikes me as a little perverse, to say the least. If you are going to use a tripd, then it makes sense to be able to frame exactly as you want to frame, so other cameras would come higher up the list, even if the M9 kills most of them on high price rights... So where, exactly, does the M9 score best? It is starting to read like a less than best for anything
sort of tool. Which is a pity, even if for me it remains a theoretical purchase only.