From a retail perspective, Canon and Nikon fight for the wanna-be pro photographer.
The guy who's willing to invest 1500 to look like a pro because that's the brand the pros use. And quite honestly, the only DSLRs
on the shelves and in the magazines. They spend heavily on marketing to not only promote this concept,
but they cater to the pro photographers that become their standard-bearers.
To prove a point, I read a story recently where in the NFL the sports photographers on the sidelines must wear Canon-logo vests otherwise they
won't be allowed in. Why is this? So that the people looking down from the stands, watching TV, see the brand name and want to be like them.
Leica has a different value proposition : the manufacture, legacy, expertise, and the cachet of the brand. They are selling to people who want to have
a relationship with their camera and their craft.
I have had two film cameras that I've ever owned. The first is the Pentax that my father gave me 30 years ago, and the other is the Leica R that I chose for myself.
I have had about a half-dozen digital cameras, none of which I use anymore. Each has come and gone. Despite its conveniences, digital has always
disappointed me. Or at least it never measured up the relationship I've had with my Pentax. My Leica is getting there
Economically speaking though, investing 4k -- 8k for camera equipment seems like a lot of money, but in reality it is not. People spend more than that
on Starbucks in a year. It's really about the choices you make.
And there's a LOT of people with disposable income out there, so why would Leica leave money on the table?
If you decide that it's too expensive for you, there's going to be 10 more people behind you who will probably want to buy --- if Leica does a good job marketing it