I never know what to do with threads like this one. Making equivalences based on inflation only completely ignores the ways in which both photographic gear, the uses of photography, and consumer spending have changed in the last fifteen years or so (to say nothing of over the last 100), and not all those trends cut in the same direction. The Leica camera made in 1960 was not a disposable consumer good, as nearly all digital cameras are now designed to be. So you spent $X with the thought that that machine would be with you a good long while. I have had most of my M film bodies for decades at this point, and several of them had decades of service on 'em when I purchased them. I expect most of them to still be functioning when I shuffle off this mortal coil. So: Leica's core business model was one that was rooted squarely in the first third of the 20th century of building a high-quality mechanical device, designed to be purchased once, repaired periodically and kept in service indefinitely.
Now all cameras are designed to be replaced every three to five years (oversimplification for illustration purposes. If you are still hacking away with your D100, good for you, but you don't represent the general consumer. The "typical" camera is now a phone with a mayfly's half-life (to mix metaphors)), and thus Leica's original business model no longer works. So they had two choices: Raise prices on small numbers of units sold, or lower prices on massive numbers of units` sold. Or go out of business (third choice, I suppose). They were never (never) going to compete with even the smaller camera companies like Nikon for units sold. Yup. I said "smaller." Nikon's a pip-squeek compared to Canon, Sony or any of the koretsu with large numbers of affiliates. So, Leica built a luxury brand instead, or capitalized on their veblen-good reputation, in order to stay in business.
They didn't do it to hurt anyone's feelings, or to create "alienation" (if a camera company even has that particular super-power . . .). That's just a by-product of the fact that a $12,000 hobby-purchase is out of reach for most of us, and we don't like having our noses rubbed in it.
BTW: If you add all the money that you have spent on mobile phones, cameras, computers for image processing, and software over the past ten years, what number to you get (or in what range are you)? Just curious, as it seems like $12,000 might be in the ball park. Also now we have "service fees" (internet "service", Photoshop "service", phone "service" etc. etc.) that for many of us are no less baked-in to the cost of this hobby than the cost of film, paper and development was (although they are much lower).
Anybody feeling less alienated now? I am donning my asbestos skivvies and hiding under the desk with a box of cookies. Bottom line: don't look to a manufacturer of things to be the custodian of your "alienation" -- to steal a line: keep pressing that shutter button; it'll come unstuck.
