Leica (and, to a lesser extent, Hasselblad) is becoming a relic of the film era, a company whose camera division subsists on nostalgia and name recognition more than actual performance. In a way, it has become a luxury label in the same vein as Prada or Rolex - their gear commands high prices without being objectively better than their competitors. In a way, their price commands rarity, which reinforces their exclusivity as a luxury product, which, in a positive feedback loop, justifies their high prices.
Yes, they do make good gear - their lenses are equal with the best. But Zeiss lenses (and some Sigma, Canon and Nikon lenses) perform just as well on any measurable level, and cost a quarter to half as much. Their bodies are well-constructed, but performance is limited - their sensor isn't the best out there (nor is it the worst), there's no option for AF, no dual cards, etc. And, unlike the film days, you can't just swap in a better kind of film every time one is released.
Back in the film days, you could justify a high price point because the camera would serve you well for 10, 20 or more years and keep up with the competition for all that time. Not so with digital - any body you buy is going to be obsolete in a few years, unable to keep pace with the performance of the latest electronics, whether it's a $500 Rebel or an $8k Leica. Which becomes much harder to justify for anyone using it as a photographic tool rather than a status symbol.
