I tend to agree. I don't get this obsession with one solution to all photo needs. It seems a particularly hot topic on this forum. I was just in a similar debate on the subject.No flame, but suggesting an M9 would have any appreciable effect on the D3x in the market place (or the 1DsIII in the market place, for that matter) is not a very realistic assessment. Given the investment in lenses most D3X owners have, plus the availability of AF and more capable metering with the D3X, speed of operation, etc, I don't think switching would cross many D3X user's minds (it certainly wouldn't cross mine). Also, the D3X already has a fairly weak AA filter, and there's always Max Max if you want to get rid of the AA entirely. Even at the incredibly high pricing of the D3X, and even with a Max Max job, I suspect the D3X will still be cheaper than an M9 (and way less costly if you count the cost of switching lens systems). And of course, there's the D700X that's almost certainly on the near horizon.
Leica's rangefinder glory days are behind them, at least as far as mass sales. An M9 will probably (hopefully) be a spectacular camera, and the lenses are of course legendary, but all that won't elevate it out of the niche category rangefinders are in.
Personally I don't think of a rangefinder as a replacement for a DSLR, or the other way around.
Maybe it's the price of digital gear that causes this?
I just this minute shot some stuff of my 4lb Chihuahua out in the yard frolicking with a Doe and her Fawn using an AF 70-200 zoom ... I could have grabbed the M8, but who would do that? ... anymore than I'd particurally want to lug the DSLR on a trip NYC for some street work.
Sorry, I don't get it. I guess I'm out of the loop
-Marc