@Murchu
"...I fail to see the advantage of paying over-the odds-prices for an under-the-spec Leica back..."
I strongly disagree. Neither you nor any of us has seen yet prints from that DMR, since it is not available yet. I have seen demo images on a laptop at a Leica booth. But I would never make a judgement just because of this.
If you think that 10mp in combination with Leica lenses is not enough for your desired print size, then I wonder why you did use Leica at all in the past. In that case only Medium Format or Large Format is the right choice, since obvious 35mm film would not be sufficient resolution for your print size.
"... Leica, and their over-the-top reliance on reputation have already priced themselves out of the 'affordable' digital market..."
Again I strongly disagree. Leica aimed never any kind of "affordarble market". They always offered a very good solution for a specific need in the market. And it was always more expensive than a Canon or Nikon. Even if you use in bothe cameras a Fuji Velvia, on one camera you have Leica lenses, on the other one something else
"...What's the price difference between a Leica back and a 5400 dpi scanner (using common-or-garden preferred film? Huh??)..."
You know, this is a rethorical question. The added value of a DMR is exactly the same as any kind of other DSLR on the market, if you compare it to using film and scan it.
1. The scanning option is ALWAYS cheaper as long as you do not shoot too many films/month. No difference between Leica DMR and other DSLRs
2. Scanning means always spending significant more time and effort in front of the computer
3. DSLRs/DMRs means always immediate control of the shot afterwards. If you do not need this and if you have still time in the evenings/on week-ends and you shoot not the amount of rolls of film like a pro, then there is absolutely no need to switch to a DSLR or DMR.
So this is not at all a DMR vs. the rest question. It is a question film vs. DSLR. Check all the pro and cons and decide afterwards for your specific need.
But to judge just by looking at the specs is not really meaningful. Just check the reviews at dpreview with the comparison Nikon D2X vs. Canon 1DsMark II. Looks not great for Canon, although it has 4MP more than the Nikon.
IMO we are at a point with 8-10MP, with which only few people will be able to see any further improvement beyond that barrier. Not because they are not capable of, but because you have make make so large prints, that it simply is nonsense to talk about thise differences.
Other issues will stay and will be improved over the years: crop factor, dynamic range, colours, more film-like look etc.
@Tigerish
"...I really like my Leica gear, but question whether there's still a market. I know it's heresy but the advances in lens manufacture techniques today have narrowed the gap between 'good' and 'superlative' glass to the point where price does become a factor..."
There is definitely still a market. You can see it because now all Canon users start buying Leica and Zeiss glass to adapt it to their Canon bodies. Just realise this:
Canon users are willing now to give up all kind of fancy techniques the Cabon bodies are capable of just for the sake of having a Leica or Zeiss glass in front of it. They go back to "manual everything" just for this! This is the proove even for people who never made a direct comparison themselves between the different lenses, that there must be a significant difference still there - even with the newest L lenses
You will see the difference less in snapshots with fairly easy light situations. But you will see it always on bad weather days and if a lot of straylight is around.
Nobody HAS TO switch to digital for the moment. Do not get in a hurry, just because all your neighbours buy DSLRs. Buy a good scanner and a good printer and see what is possible with this. You will be surprised. And wait and see what real tests of the final DMR version will show within the next weeks.