I haven't had it long, but I'm very much enjoying using my Voightlander R2A. For those who are unfamiliar with them, it's a Japanese rangefinder film camera, built to roughly the same quality as a semi-pro DSLR like my D200, it takes Leica M-mount lenses and costs about 1/6 as much as a real Leica.
I think it's a case of choosing the right tools for different styles of photography myself. If I want to do macro, use any sort of telephoto lens, take lots and lots of pictures quickly, need autofocus, flash or a tripod, I'll use an SLRs. Whether film or digital (I use both) SLRs are very flexible tools that can do a lot of things pretty well.
A Leica-type camera is useless with anything but the shortest of teles, barely usable for macro only with added doo-dads and a lot of fiddling, has incredibly primitive metering if it's got a meter at all, what you see through the viewfinder isn't always what you're going to get (in terms of framing) and all of the ones that normal people can afford (until secondhand M8's get a bit cheaper) require you to use film.
That's OK though for certain types of photography which I enjoy and actually, for the limited range of photographic tasks where it's usable at all, I think that style of camera has some advantages over SLRs. It's not that much smaller or lighter than my F3 with an AIS lens on it for example, but it's just enough smaller and less bulky as to make the difference between taking it with me or not on a significant number of occasions, it doesn't draw attention like a big DSLR, doesn't say 'pro camera' to anyone but a fellow enthusiast and it handles very nicely indeed. For what it does it's 'just right'
If you're exposing manually anyway, and pre-focussing, it's actually very quick and easy to use once you get the hang of it. While the framing isn't always accurate, you can see what you're capturing because the viewfinder doesn't black out when you click. There's no delay while computers decide whether and what to take a picture of. You're completely in control of the focus point and exposure (for better or worse) Also, from short tele to wide angle, even the cheapish Voightlander lenses are really, really good, apparently because it's easier to design a good lens if you don't have to use retrofocus to accomodate the way that an SLR works. The somewhat more expensive lenses from Zeiss and the vastly more expensive ones from Leica are just stunningly good in most cases.
I've never owned an actual Leica nor shot with one much, so I can't really comment on whether the bodies are better enough to justify costing an order of magnitude more than my Voightlander. I suspect not personally, though with some of the lenses it's possibly a bit more arguable. The basic style of camera though, assuming you want to do that sort of photography at all and (unless you're really rich) enjoy using film, has a great deal going for it in my personal opinion.
