I noticed there are some who have these two cameras in their 'arsenal'. i posted a 'picture quality' thread recently on another forum, but it would seem most people just wanted to talk about the cameras themselves, rather than the pictures the camera gives. Not being an M9 owner I was wondering what owners of both cameras thought about the like-for-like picture quality. Have they done any tests? At 7-8 times the cost of the X100, does the M9 produce the requisite quality that justifies this? (yes I am aware that the price has more to do with material and workmanship quality, so please, no debate about this). but the ned result has to be its output. i know people aspire to own an M9, but is this aspiration purely based on the principle of perceived high price = high quality. afterall, it's only a box with which to take an image. ( i am also aware that its the person behind the lens that make a difference to the picture quality too, no please, no debate on this either). PS: Wouldnt an interchangebale lens X100 be wonderful.