[Leica] Which camera to take to Israel?

[pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein)]

  It looks like we are going to Israel for 2 weeks later this fall. It 
will be our first time there. We'll be spending the first week in and 
near Tel Aviv and Haifa, sometimes on our own and sometimes with 
relatives who live there. Then we'll take a weeklong bus tour around the 
country. We'll be moving around quite a bit, mostly on foot or in buses. 
So whatever I take will be carried around a lot.

I'll have a decision to make about cameras. I could take:

     * M8, 28/3.5 VC, 35/2 or 35/1.4, maybe 50/1.5 and/or 90/3.5 VC.  
This is what I usually travel with.
     * G1, 14-54 f/4-ish  kit zoom, 20/1.7, and VC 90/3.5. This worked 
pretty well for me on my recent Canada trip.

Right now, the heart is saying Leica and the head is saying G1. I have a 
painful "frozen" right shoulder, which probably won't get better until 
next year sometime, so it's better to keep things light on my neck and 
other shoulder.  I'm also developing a cataract on my right (shooting) 
eye.  So far it's just softened things a little and lowered my visual 
contrast.  My glasses still correct my right eye to 20/20, so it's 
nowhere near the surgery stage.  It's not really hurt my ability to 
focus yet, but it has reduced my confidence.

In favor of the M8:

     * Higher image quality.
     * If I want a big print for my wall, likelier to have sufficient IQ.
     * Better low-light ability for family, dusk & night shots, or 
cloudy days.
     * Optical VF and no blackout, so faster to shoot and get what I saw.
     * No issues with autofocus focusing on the wrong thing
     * All the controls are where God and HCB intended  :-)
     * What's the point of having a Leica if I don't take it on a 
highlight-of-my-life trip?
     * Camera is insured
     * I could take a fanny pack or photo vest to keep some of the 
weight off the bad shoulder

In favor of the G1:

     * Image quality, while not Leica, is probably good enough esp. in 
sunlight and 8x10-ish or less.
     * Significantly lighter, smaller kit
     * The 20/1.7 is a great lens; I'm still covered for reasonable 
lower light, though not for true "available dark"
     * Won't be changing lenses nearly so often.
     * More versatile.
     * The 90/3.5 makes a great almost-200m equivalent.
     * Don't have to worry about focusing (except for the 90).
     * If it gets damaged or stolen, it's not the end of the world.
     * Built-in flash for family snaps if necessary, and for fill in the 
bright desert.
     * Won't have to worry about cleaning the sensor (dust-buster built-in).

What do you think?  There are some genuine trade-offs here, and I really 
could go either way.

--Peter