bsaber wrote in post #16715280
My first M9 suffered a cracked sensor on the plane ride during my vacation to Yellowstone. It really sucked...
EDIT: Luckily Leica replaced the sensor, repainted the whole camera, and replaced the worn leather all for free.
I will hand it to Leica; they're very good about making things right when their cameras fail.
Perhaps there's a bit of an ascertainment bias at play here; who knows how many M3s failed in the first 4-5 years following introduction. But ask yourself this: do you expect to be able to create viewable photographs with your M9/MM/Typ 240/etc in 25 years? That is, do you expect (a) the camera to remain functional and (b) the photos to be in a format that is widely supported at the time? I fully expect my MP to be able to make photographs (and yes, I fully expect film - at least B&W film - to exist in 25 years). Perhaps JPEG will still be around (who knows, though), but will the off-the-shelf electronics in your camera still be functional?
This isn't an argument against digital cameras; it's an argument against very, very expensive digital cameras. You simply cannot expect to amortize the cost of an MM over 25 (e.g.) years, whereas I expect my MP to outlive me, as evidenced by the ongoing functional lifespan of the earliest M3s (now at 60 years and counting). If you earn money from your digital Leica, then it's a wonderful choice, and the cost is not an issue. If you don't, then that's another story.