Canon successfully educated most photographers that a high end shooting equipment should have a full frame sensor with larger pixel, and the lens should have constant f2.8 aperture. Recently Panasonic etc. enforced this idea by introducing the p&s with f2.0 constant aperture that has Leica brand name on it.
The "real" Leica and Zeiss lenses seemed didn't follow this game. Leica did offer the much praised zoom in this category (70-180mm f2.8 and 35-70mm f2.
, but they are almost unreachable for people who may have somewhat deep pocket. The availability is so rare, and they require deep gold mine, deep pocket is not enough. So their true work force are in the f4. It is generally acceptible because Leica/Zeiss f4 lenses are considered tend to have more usable wide aperture than other's F2.8.
The newly announce, much expected Leica Mini M falls back even more. The aperture is only f3.5-6.5. I am rather disappointed.
I sometimes laugh at people who is chasing the maximum number of pixel count. Now I am thinking if chasing for the fastest lens and largest sensor also falls into the same myth. Is it real advantage to reduce the maximum aperture in exchange of image quality, using Canon/Nikon/Sony's f2.8 zoom as the base?