Riverman
Well-known
Leica is built way better than anything else. Why do you see so many 50 year old M3 and M2 around ? See and old Zeiss around in significant numbers?
Now the cost is less so you can figure you will just replace it and that is one philosophy.
Just don`t think it is a cheap Leica, it is not. Maybe film will be totally gone in 10 years and the lifetime investment is gone anyway.
Cheer up. I'm sure there'll be film around in ten years. If there isn't it won't be for lack of demand. Also - without for a minute disputing the quality of craftsmanship or durability of an M3 or an M2 I suspect one possible reason comparatively fewer cameras of other marques of similar vintage are seen these days is that comparatively fewer were built. I don't know this for certain but I wonder.
Anyway. Today I got the opportunity to look at an M8 in a store - I'm not in the market for one (currently debating between an M7 and a Zeiss Ikon) - but I wanted to check out the viewfinder on a Leica (never held any M mount camera before) I have to say I didn't get on well with the viewfinder in the M8. I think I've been really spoiled by the Mamiya 6. The widest framelines visible in this M8 were a real strain to see - can't be dealing with that, particularly as I like wider lenses. I'm assuming the same would be true of the M7.
This means, that if I go the M7 route I probably have to go for an a la carte 0.58. Ouch. At the moment - and with all I've heard about its superb viewfinder - the Zeiss Ikon edges ahead for me. With the (considerable) loot spared not buying a la carte I could pick up a chrome M4 to satisfy the Leica craving and just shoot very forgiving HP5 on it (judging the exposure myself) and use the metered Zeiss for my slides work.