Battery life, for example, is a disgrace. But it must be quite difficult to build a better battery, because if it were easy, someone would make better, cheaper batteries for RF Leicas.
Cheers,
R.
OR, having a mostly captive market means you can charge what you like for a less than optimal product maybe?
Anyone going "well I've got one, two, several, and I take photos with them, so no they haven't alienated photographers" is completely missing the point of the question.
Do working photographers who rely on their gear to produce, and have to consider the value proposition of their gear reach for a Leica?
OR do they reach for Nikon/Canon/Sony, increasingly Fuji and for video increasingly Panasonic.
They're readily available, you can grab replacements when you need to the bigger companies have Professional Networks and provide back up and loaners for when equipment is in for repair, and do all they can to facilitate getting the job done.
Their products compete with each other performance wise and they're made to do innovative things (Like Sony dropping the MP count on some of the A7's to create class leading high ISO output).
Leica products simply aren't competitive against those products technically, their specs are usually a couple of years behind, there's seemingly very little support, and their habit of going "oh we'll have your camera for a couple of months, for a sensor replacement, no loaner" approach simply means they're not remotely a competitor, add in the prices, and it honestly becomes laughable.
So yes, they've absolutely alienated photographers, because they simply aren't a viable option.
They're smart in that knowing they can't hang with the big boys they push the luxury aspect of the brand, and are the only game in town for rangefinder shooting and they have their own niche.
When they start moving into areas like the Q and the SL then things get murkier.
I say this as someone who occasionally coverts a Q, but then finds myself thinking "I can have nearly 8 Ricoh GR IIs for that price, and honestly the difference in performance isn't THAT big"
(I'm fully aware that the Q is full frame and a faster lens, but it's nowhere remotely close to being 8 times the camera the GR is in terms of output)
They're simply not competitive.
If you like them or love them that's absolutely fine, I'm glad you have a tool that works well for you, and that you're enjoying it.
It's not a personal judgement on you at all.
