Leicas are smooth running well machined optical instruments.
I guess i'm just not a rangefinder guy at heart. I've played with Leicas and wasn't too impressed. My friends M3 just didn't feel as right as any Nikon I've ever used (from the F to the F6). If you're obsessing about raw image quality, you can buy a damn Hasselblad KIT for less than a Leica + lens. If you're obsessing about weight, a smallish SLR or even an Olympus XA are versatile, cheaper, and compact. I can understand paying a premium for a certain "look" but, I find it's easier to get the looks I like on Large format with it's respective lenses, if I am really looking for something non-modern.
That being said, TLRs still have a few advantages.
Why all the Leica bashing? Walk over to your bookshelf and pull out a few books by photographers that shot 35mm. You'll find quite a lot that used Leicas. They're great tools that a huge number of very talented photographers have found to be the right camera for their use. These people were not stupid, and they also mostly were far from rich.
What the heck does the "post rangefinder" era have to do with it? This is the post film era. A Nikon F5 is no more up to date today than a Leica M4.
You can use whatever you prefer - Holga, pinhole, or Argus, but it is obnoxious to bash other peoples camera choices.
Don't be silly. Pointing out that lots of old cameras are durable isn't bashing Leica. There really is nothing special about the durability and longevity of Leicas, it's pretty normal. That's not bashing, that's just a simple truth.
"Post rangefinder" simply points out that as manufacturers switched to SLRs for their system cameras, the Leica basically became the unique excellent rangefinder system. There are however many great systems out there, Leica just happens to be a rangefinder system. That is all.
My post was directed more at the "jewelry" comments, etc. I did not dispute your statement about durability; my Nikon F's have been amazingly durable and reliable cameras. But, I do disagree with your comments about there being nothing special about the Leica. I'm sure there are things that are special about an F3, or Aria, or many others too. If they suit your needs use them. The people who do not find a camera to be of interest to them are not really the ones whose opinion of those cameras is very useful.
Your not going to make any money purchasing an item when it is already known as a collector's item. The people who make money anticipate what is going to become valuable. Not too many people have this skill.
I don't know where you get your numbers, but it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than to rent something if the same size. It's just that most people don't have enough for a down payment. Also you can't "move around" too much.
Still it's foolish to pay rent when the money is going into the owners mortgage instead of just paying your own. The homeowners game is long term, you don't see the benefit until around the time you hit the 10 year mark, then you really start understanding the increase in value and actualizing the profit as real estate values increase over inflation.
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
This thread is hilarious to me, as someone who has pussyfooted around buying the best gear and was a notorious alternative-seeker along every step of the way, in multiple formats. Once you buy the good stuff, the anti-Leica/Hassy/whatever rationalizations sound quite silly.
Shoot what works for you. Make great photos. But don't pretend for a second that finely crafted gear is the aesthetic equivalent of the alternatives that we all *could* make great photos with if we had to, minus the nuance which is our justifiable option.