Aite, I have quite a bit of experience so I guess I can provide a bit of input
I have used Leica M6s for a long time with a 50 Summicron f/2. the old one, practically glued to it. And did play with a M9 for a few months. Here's the thing though, the images that you get are great, provided that the rangefinder is calibrated properly, the framing is correct despite the rather inaccurate viewfinder framelines, the precense of proper light to provide enough exposure to the image as there is a huge sacrifice in High ISOs, and the fact that you can MF before your subject moves (if it is moving that is) and if you can focus well enough with a fast lens. But boy, are the images worth it. The Leica magic (or wdv you wanna call this visual voodoo) is present.
The Leica M? It has Live view so it sort of solves the need to have your rangefinder calibrated (but defeats the point in buying a M anyway.) the high ISO is better, the sensor has more resolution, a much better battery life AND retains the same price of the M9 when it was out. That being said, the fact that it is priced the same as the launching price of the M9 doesnt matter as it needs to compete with current cameras at that price point, which isn't many as it is more expensive than a lot of the flagship consumer models of other brands like the D800E, 5D MKIII, A99, X-PRO 1, K-5 IIs, OM-D, etc. etc. All of which can be bought with a proper lens or 2/3/4/5 for the price of a M TYPE240 body only. More on this later. So does these improvements actually justify the high price of the M? IMO, it actually does, in a way, unless you compare it apples to apples.
Let's put it this way. It has 1080p video (not very good video), ISO is decent (good to 2500 ISO imo), a great battery life (1k approx. = big plus here), higher res sensor, And it is full frame. full frame in a camera half the size of a D800, uses the some of the best lenses ever made (both mechanically and optically), and has the build quality like no other. Are these things worth the 10k++ it is priced at? for a body only? You are getting the SMALLEST FF interchangeable digital camera in the world (this is probably gonna raise the premium quite a bit), that uses some of the BEST and MOST EXOTIC lenses ever, and you get a body that has a style that will get you ladies
and street cred (you use the camera that only a small percentage can afford to buy). I mean people spend thousands on Prada, Hermes, Vuitton bags right?
Take away the styling, the fact the Leica branding, and the street cred though. You actually get a very overpriced camera for the money. The sensor first most, yes, it is FF, but does it actually justify that high price anymore? It is now a CMOS, so some of the Leica magic that the CCD provides is lost right? I personally don't think so. I think that 90% of the magic is in the Leica lenses, 10% in the sensor. I mean if Leica magic can be found in the film Leicas, which make use of different "sensors" all the time, this means that it should be in the lenses. Just my take. The D800E can fit a FF that is HUGE in resolution, thrashes the Leica CMOSIS sensor to the ground in detail resolving, in terms of high ISO as well. and in a body that is half the price. But sure in a body double the size. Video on the D800E is also much better with better controls, bitrates, etc. etc. Performance is much better in terms of shot to shot, processing images, etc. etc. Much more versatile, it has AF, better flash compatibility. AND ALL AT HALF THE PRICE.
So is the rangefinder experience, metal body and tactility of the functions worth it? Nope, not even close. Add in the branding and stuff, yea it might. That's how modern society works. The brand and where it is makes matters.
Lenses-wise, it is the same thing. Take away the Leica branding and stuff, and all you get is an expensive piece of glass and metal. Let's take the Summilux 50 1.4 ASPH which I had some experience with. It is sharp, beautiful, fast and well made with great bokeh. But worth ALOT. more than 4k to be exact. And I'll put another lens that I love into the mix. The Nikon 85mm 1.8G. It has decent AF, sort of a mechanical focus, fast, beautiful rendering, well made, reasonably light, incredibly sharp and has very nice bokeh. But it costs about $600 new. :/..... That is 6-7 times cheaper than the Summilux.
Both fast FF lenses below f/2 (the Nikon has a shallower depth of field), both extremely sharp, but is the Leica lens, without the AF motor, the metal body, and the "Leica magic" worth that massive (MASSIVE) price premium? No. Not even close. The great build quality? Sure that adds to the price premium. But Voigtlander can make lenses like the 75 1.8 which is beautifully made all metal, etc. Not Leica quality but 85-90% there and costs 800 dollars. It doesnt have AF and not weather sealed. If having access to said Leica magic means a premium of 3-4k, count me out.
In the end, I am still a sucker for Leica cameras and lenses. Something about using them that makes it all come together into a satisfying, wallet-lightening, heart-wrenching, divorce-causing and thief-attracting (if your thieves research their targets before robbing/stealing) package. Sure you get the shot, and most likely, the Canikons, Fuji, Olys, etc. will get the shot much easier and faster with AF etc. But it won't be as satisfying as using a Leica, if you just slow down and appreciate everything. If you are impatient and expect the camera to churn out shot after shot, second after second, then this camera is not for you at all. Just an expensive expense you might hurl into the nearest wall or floor in rage.
Just a bloody long thought I wanted to get out in a long time.
Almost.... The same as Romania.... the cheap labor euro countries. 
