Fairness in that sense isn't unique to Leica. The same argument can be made with respect to any 35mm camera with a manual mode which accepts manual focus lenses. Is a Leica any more "fair" than say a Nikon F, Canon F1, Olympus OM-1, etc.? Aren't they "great equalizers" as well?
Or for that matter any camera with a manual mode.
Granted, several people here have readily professed to be incapable of reading camera manuals, so they might not have figured out what the M on a mode dial stands for.
Or maybe it's just that they are philosophically opposed to mode dials to begin with - a superfluous feature that gets in the way. Perhaps such easy access to automation (autofocus, heavens! Aperture priority must be the devils works) is just too much temptation for their weak self control. The purity and sanctity of their boring photographs of people that happen to be on a street in dramatic black and white is surely diluted when a camera makes decisions for them.
The two sides here are just talking past each other.
One side claims rightly that Leica is vastly more expensive compared to other cameras one can buy that are as or more flexible, have equal or better sensors, can have a significantly shallower learning curve but offering depth when the photographer is ready for it, all while being similarly sized, capable of mounting the same lenses and being every bit as or even more reliable. Consequently, they claim that Leica is irrelevant to the mainstream, and they are undeniably right.
It's even worse when you don't limit Leica to the M and consider their Panasonic rebadges. All the arguments to justify the M price - limited production, hand-crafted, made in places with higher labor costs - all go out the window with the rebadges. The claim that they are selling their name absolutely holds (and please don't add the full retail value of a bundled Lightroom 5 to help make up the difference).
Mortally offended though, the response is that Leicas simplicity and lack of superfluous features, and great build quality are still very appealing to a specific niche that can use them as photographic tools. OK great, but that still does not change the fact that Leica does not matter to the mainstream (because if it did, either Leica or someone would make a product to get those sales).
No manufacturer is going to because the rangefinder isn't relevant to the mainstream - it's been tried, used, compared against TTL viewing and AF, and replaced. And the rangefinder is really all that differentiates the digital Ms from digital anything else now. Sure, some of the niche might really value manual controls and the lack of "superfluous" features, but the rest of us are happy to adapt, and not have to pay a premium for enforced simplicity. If you're used to Ms, and you can afford them, and you aren't willing to adapt then more power to you. It's great that Leica still makes something that matters to the tiny little niche you occupy.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about camera manuals. All my digitals have manuals that are thinner than my microwave, dishwasher and washing machine though (and those don't come printed in multiple languages to boot). Yet somehow, we still manage to use these devices, because just like digital cameras, they are all pretty darn similar when you get down to it, and they just aren't that hard (because difficulty and complexity aren't the same thing). Personally, I think the "must have simplicity because manuals are too long" says more about the user than the manual. That, and the histogram of ages of posters on this thread.
