Leica has built a reputation of being the workhorse of certain types of photographers (e. g. photojournalists who work in remote countries, their range finders have been the tool of choice when you need a robust, unobtrusive camera you can easily hide).
I don't think it's all that ubiquitous of a reputation- that segment is niche freelancers for the most part (I used to work for a multi-billion dollar media empire with over 100 newspapers, and I doubt there was a Leica at any of the papers.) I also don't think it's really a "workhorse" because those types of shooters aren't doing that type of photography.
Not a pro workhorse? By the same argument, all medium format bodies are not pro workhorses. They cost about the same (think: small or medium-sized car) and they are professional.
No- what I'm saying is that Leica's sweet spot has been the rangefinder niche, wealthy aficionados, and the occasional freelance war correspondent- not the photographer who's doing a wedding every weekend from March through September. Even in the photojournalist niche, these cameras aren't doing 1200 shutter activations each weekend- that's why I chose the word workhorse- I'm not saying Leicas aren't good for professional work, I'm saying that they've traditionally been simple, reliable machines, not day in, day out hundreds to thousands of activations- and to compare a mechanical rangefinder with an electronic SLR isn't necessarily going to give you a good idea of how it'll perform.
Hasselblad used to be the tool of choice for wedding photographers at least in my hemisphere many moons ago. If the Leica S2 handles more like a Fuji S2 or so in terms of size, then I think this may be a market segment, too.
Again, I think it'll be difficult to convince working wedding pros that Leica automatically has what it takes to be a workhorse, since they've simply been putting out thoroughbreds for decades. If the capability were that necessary, folks would be getting the 'Blads left and right and bitching about the size/weight- I don't see that happening- so the capability must be (a) not that important, (b) not that necessary compared to the Canon/Nikon capabilities today or (c) under developed market-wise.
High ISO with medium format backs are what, ISO 400 or ISO 800?
None of those shots need 39MP- surely any 20x30 or up print is going to be a well-lit formal? Again I just don't see this as a large market, since the 35mm crowd is "good enough." If it were, then the HD3II's would be selling like hotcakes, since they've already got the capabilities outlined and a high-end wedding photographer would ROI the body inside a weekend. Of course, they could purchase about 7 D3s or 1Ds for the same price point- so the compelling differences need to be quite compelling (but not necessarily real.)
They've finally announced a price?
It's not an official announcement, more a leaked MSRP. Seems about right though.
Edit: Hassy's recent price drops can't be underestimated as a cost of the improvements in small format digital SLRs- the 31MP HD3II is now $18k, as stated before, the 39MP body is now $22k- leaving only the 50MP and when it hits, 60MP bodies up in the high end of the market. Outside of not wanting to show up at a wedding and be shown up by the guests' cameras, I can't imagine that the idea of working with 39M files is all that compelling when culling out non-formals for an album- a 40% drop in camera price can't be good for the margins, and the 5DmkII can't bode a good future in any case for the $4k for a normal lens crowd.
