>>3426475>I went out of my way to make sure no one knows the brandUnderstand that anyone who would recognize a Leica with the red Leica dot on it will recognize a Leica without the dot just as easily. They're very recognizable.
>>3424037Okay, so, I also own a Leica (an M9, which I keep bringing up every chance I get here because I think it makes people think my dick is bigger than it actually is).
From the perspective of "Can I get any pictures with this camera that I couldn't get with a vastly, vastly cheaper camera", no, it's not worth it.
It's potentially worth it, however, in that it makes you take pictures differently than you otherwise might. I.e., no autofocus, minimalist controls, rangefinder so you don't get through-the-lens viewing, all of these add up to a very different shooting experience than the one you get with an SLR.
Back in the day, when TLRs were the standard for news reporting because they weren't as bulky as large format press cameras and 35mm SLRs weren't really a thing yet, people used to decry that all photos looked like they were taken from waist level. Then SLRs came along, and most photos had the look of being taken at eye level most of the time. There's nothing that says you CAN'T shoot a TLR at eye level, and nothing that says that you CAN'T take a knee when you shoot your SLR, but most people didn't, and that gave a similar perspective to the majority of the photos out there. Sameness is boring. People value photos that look different from the norm a bit more.
So a Leica, by just being a different way of shooting, will make you shoot differently, and that will give your photos a different look than you get from any other digital cameras out there.
Does that make it worth it to pay thousands of dollars for a camera that can't even autofocus?
... Probably not. But that's why they're sought after.
