Not that I am in any way a fan of this style, I just think his writing is very aggressive and confrontational for shock and awe entertainment, (not much different then the endless blogs and posts about the end of the DSLR for “Pros”) but if you get beyond the posturing there are many valid points, about the equipment choices of the working pro. I would be willing to guess that the vast majority of Leica M digitals are not owned by pros or even serious amateurs but instead by the same people who buy Porsches and drive them way under the speed limit, or buy baby grand pianos that just sit idle in the living room or build super kitchens and never cook. We do this with lots of things, I have said a few times before that I own way more guitars than I should, considering how bad I play.
For me I have never been able to rationalize the increased cost of Leica, without any real measurable gain in the quality of the image. I also understand the emotion and visceral thrill of shooting with one camera or another, so if one believes in the camera, one just might be that much more inspired and shoot more. Just buy what turns you on regardless of what anybody else thinks.
He has another diatribe on his site about Canon, even though I came to a different conclusion in what I did, I do not disagree with a lot of his points about why he switched back to Nikon. Where I could care less about Nikons superior TTL flash abilities, something that apparently is important to him, I do care about AF speed and camera handling. I completely agree that Canon took way, way too much time to start delivering the new IDX, almost enough time to make me buy a Nikon D4. In the end I am sticking with Canon for the time being but it was close.