I just don´t have that sort of experience, since I go with the
"smartness" to have one line of manufacturer - so e.g. a Canon
body, a Canon lens.
That's really cool. I wish I had done so. But wait. Should I buy this lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews....&page=1instead of this?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews....&page=1Like I said, if you're fortunate enough to toss 1100USD for Canon L 24-70 f2.8, then it's fine. We, who are as poor as a church mouse and wanted their body to last a couple of years (I know, I'm so dumb..) must go with the cheap lens for the starters. And as you say you have "the smart rule" of Canon body-Canon lens then I should rather bought the first lens and got shitty results. Instead, I bought second and get very nice results for the given prize (I can't complain that it focuses slowly, it has a flare when shooting against sun...).
And if we get back to original topic (Leica as a 3rd party manufacturer), I suggested that another great company in photographic history - Contax would be wise to enter the market as a 3rd party manufacturer, because they have produced one of the best (if not best) glass and the price was not as outrageous as Leicas.
And back to one of your comments: you have a Leica camera with Leica glass and you know it will last for generations. Are you saying that .. say.. Canon 17-40 L will vanish or.. disintegrate in 10 years by simply using it? I think no.
Another thing. "they don't have a high lens output". God, I said "ultra high quality". I don't know if you are Vill Blates or aonther zillionaire, but I expect lens for 2500 dollars would be something for really demanding professionals, not for someone who just saves like mad for his 600 dollar Canon 17-40 L.
Oh.. and last one thing.. can you actually see the difference in your amazing photos taken by amazing Leica camera with extraordinary Leica lens compared to other cameras or you are just pretending to see them? If you can, then it is great and you have great photographic tool and should be proud.