>>4028436>>4028605Based.
>>4028599Most people either think they're god's gift to photography, or just an overhyped / overpriced rich person toy. They do have a long and meaningful history in the photo world, and I definitely consider them a "heritage" brand. There are some working pro's that use them, but they are the extreme minority.
Leica really excels at offering great IQ options at a very compact size, but even then it's quite a premium for marginal gains. They're very functionally limited, and I understand that's part of the appeal for some people, but still. The Monochrom's are a bit more unique, and getting usable shots at 25k ISO is pretty awesome. The M11 sensor is also excellent. Those are the only two things I would consider uniquely special from a tech or performance standpoint. Everything outside of the M and Q series also make little sense to me. I've owned some Leica lenses, but could never justify them again (I'm still very "value" oriented despite my money), and I just stick with the new Voigtlander glass for now.
It's hard for me to see them as anything other than a luxury / novelty item, and I wouldn't interested if worse off financially. They're well made, and offer a "refined" experience, but god forbid you have to send one in for repair or service. I truly don't get the obsession with rangefinder focusing. It is quick and relatively precise, but has limitations, and is still just a focusing method. Shooting with an offset OVF with frame lines is definitely a great experience, but again, other cameras offer that with much more functionality. The metering is pretty poor compared to most modern cameras. I used my film M's meterless, so I'm very comfortable doing everything manually, but if a priority mode gets me the shot with less work, I'm all for it. Same goes for focusing, I can MF just fine, but if AF can work better, I'm all for it.
I can link some more posts here out of my M10-M, but here's a side-by-side with a 50R for fun.
