>>3460898>They can't mass produce them, in part because of the way rangefinders / quality cameras are produced featuring many complex components and materials such as brassYeah that's complete bullshit.
You see, there's tons of manual SLRs built like bricks, from brass (or even Titanium), and also precision engineered cause an SLR is not any less complicated. You substitute the rangefinder complexity, with the mirror+pentaprism complexity, which mirror has to flip out of the way very quickly when you press the shutter, and then autoreturn quickly, while dampening its return so as not to cause shake. Same for the mechanism stopping down the aperture to the taking aperture.
There's not much to argue about, since contemporary german SLRs at the zenith of Leica's popularity used to cost more than Leica rangefinders.
The matter of fact is, SLRs turned to be far more popular and produced in far greater numbers, so there's an unending supply of them. It's not that film Leicas are overpriced, it's that SLRs from the period are underpriced. It's insane that you can get, for instance, an Olympus OM-2 plus fast lens for less than $100.
Or a high end body like a contax RTS body for $100. Or a top end RTS III for $300-350. We're talking about a camera with magnesium and titanium cover plates, 1/8000 shutter with 1/250 sync speed, ceramic film plate that creates a vacuum to keep the film flat, etc. .
In the end, both film Leicas and high end SLRs are cheaper than what they used to cost (inflation adjusted). But SLRs are much, much, much cheaper (1/10th of their value) while Leicas are just cheaper (~2/3rds-1/2 of their value).
The whole of photography has become much more affordable.
With regards to their digital bodies, the M series they can charge whatever they want, cause they're the only full frame digital rangefinders. So whatever the few people that really like them are willing to pay, Leica will charge.
