[adan]

Let me expand a bit...When it comes time for Leica to build a "full-frame" (24x36mm) sensor, they can, of course, simply keep Kodak's CCD architecture as used in the M8 and DMR, and just put more of the same pixels on a bigger sensor. And as sdai says, this will get them to about an 18 Mpixel camera - with about the same noise performance as the M8.

Alternatively, they could use a sensor with larger pixels, only a small increase in total pixel count (to 12 or 13 Mpixels) but a big increase in low-light noise performance, a la Canon 5D (and presumably, but we shall see, the Nikon D3).

Or they can go somewhere in between, with subtle improvements in both resolution and noise.

I just hope Leica does not have blinders on, and looks at all the possibilities before making that decision.

A big sensor, of course, has other aspects than pixel count and pixel performance. Less (or more creative) DOF for a given field of view, for example. Corner performance, especially with wide lenses, for another. It will be interesting to see how a Nikon 17-35 or 14-24 or 20mm prime performs on the D3, as regards vignetting or CA. Has Nikon borrowed from Leica/Kodak and offset the microlenses?

Carsten: Good points - although at this point I still sort of feel that ALL DSLRs seem to have something missing. Practically any of them, from the D80 up through the D3 (and including the 40D and 5D) could win me over today if they just included a) an SD card option, and b) optional OEM split-image focus screens for manual focus.

Alternatively, the pro Canons (which already offer a and b) could get to me by lopping off about 25% of their height and weight.

Although as I mentioned before, I'd still have a tilt to Nikon simply because of their backward compatibility to pre-AF non-plastic lenses.

I do think both Canon and Nikon have turned a significant corner this week - and Leica is no doubt reviewing their own working specs for the R10 in light of these events (or at least I hope so!)