Does the Nikon Df sound the death knell of the Leica M?

[TMARK]

I don't think the M is just for wealthy dentists etc.  It just isn't a hard core PJ camera you would find in Syria or Afghanistan.  Its GREAT for editorials.  I rarely shoot assignments anymore, but when I do they are editorial portraits.  I use M9s and a D800e, maybe MF film if I can. 

I am not sure that Leica's are now only used by wealthy amateurs. It is true that it would very strange to see an M in a throng of photographers shooting an event such as the Toronto Mayor's press conference yesterday: full auto everything, xxx frames per second, and perhaps wi-fi direct to the newsroom. I am finding that people are curious about my photographing with an old-fashioned camera (an M9) "....can you still get film today?" It establishes a different type of relationship, perhaps a welcome intrusion into their lives. So, for much of what I do an M or something similar is what I want; for much of the rest of my work it is a 5d2 or whatever I eventually replace it with.
Jean-Michel

[PhotoEcosse]

I don't think the M is just for wealthy dentists etc.  It just isn't a hard core PJ camera you would find in Syria or Afghanistan.  Its GREAT for editorials.  I rarely shoot assignments anymore, but when I do they are editorial portraits.  I use M9s and a D800e, maybe MF film if I can. 

Once upon a time, the Leica was a particularly well engineered "robust" camera well suited to photojournalism in extreme conditions. The same camera might give 20 years of service.

In today's "throw away" world where a camera is obsolete in a couple of years, such robust longevity is no longer appreciated the way it once was.

Photo journalists, like all professional photographers, have to consider the cost/benefit analysis of their purchases - unlike we genuine amateurs who can (obviously within the limits of personal budgets) splash money about to indulge our whims and fancies without any vfm considerations.