The Leica is the result of a fine design, proper materials and first rate manufacturing.

The Leica M is designed so that the winding and shutter mechanism is good for an easy 250,000 exposure and wear is nearly impossible to measure after 100,000 exposures. Whether tthe Leica M makes economic sense to the photographic user who purchases it will depend on is if he has the funds, will get good use out of it and can resell at some point in the future with a reasonable return and what value is to be placed on the joy of ownership.

For the same amount one can purchase more than one of most film cameras that have a higher level of technology.

It is sort of similar to buying one Mercedes vs several Chevorlets.

The right answer is determined by the purchaser. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Quite frankly, I much admire Leica cameras. I used to own 2 M5 bodies with a visoflex and 21 f4, 35 f2, 50 f1, 50 f2, 65 f3.5 black, 90mm elmarit, 135mm f4, 180mm 2.8 Tele Elmarit and a 280mm 4.8 Telyt in foco-rapid mount and some accessories. I found no reason for dissatisfaction thru several years of regularly using the camers and lenses. The products are of good quality.
The recession of the late 70's and early 80's bit me on the ass hard enough
that I was forced to sell by my foolish desire to be a responsible husband, father and a greedy desire to eat. At that time I made more use of my camera for people pictures..perhaps 30% with the remainder being static subject matter.

These days I have switched to a Contax RTSIII with 9 LENSES... 8 Zeiss and 1 Leica. I have found no reason with regular use to be dissatisfied. The products are of good quality. These days perhas 2% of my photos contain moving subject matter or find me so lazy as not to use a very heavy tripod. Anal is as anal does.

I know of no other cameras as likely to be satisfactory to me for the way the cameras were applied to the tasks I wished to tackle.