Split, How do you factor repairability into the equation? I'm not talking about continued use of a camera bought long ago. For example, I had a Minolta CLE when they were in production and got very good results with it, but i'd be reticent to buy one now at $800 USD. My observation goes for any camera for which parts (particularly electronic components) are no longer available.
The key here is to acquire cameras that have had easy lives; the uglier they look, the more likely they've been abused or subjected to less than ideal conditions, all of which can contribute to failures sooner or later.
An electronic failure on the CLE can be a relatively simple board-level repair as it's an early 1980s production (a solder joint that went bad, or a bad cap. Bad caps are actually a common failure of early 80s Minolta SLRs.) The Konica being a much later production (2000ish) has more complicated circuits, flex PCBs, surface mount components, and such things make it more difficult to work on. More traumatic failures ( for example shutter mechanism) require donor cameras, which have other unrepairable faults.
I have owned 3 (I think) Hexar RF over the years, none failed, FWIW. Ditto with CLE.
At that point it becomes a matter of the repair expense, and finding a tech (who has specific experience on the given model) to swap the parts.
There was a recent post here about a Minolta CLE expert (Scott Nielsen) and there are other individuals that specialize in specific brands such as
@monopix who can resurrect many models of electronic Contax SLRs. I don't know of any individuals that specializes in the Konica or the Zeiss but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Maybe Dave Easterwood is worth contacting. Perhaps there are techs in Japan?
Bottom line: factor the price of the camera into the risk equation. I just acquired a super-nice CLE with a 6 month warranty for $600, I figure I can do that five times over and still be ahead of the cost of an equivalent condition M6.
😎
