I still wish another digital rangefinder would come out (not rangefinder style). The Epson RD-1 is too old for me to justify paying $1000 for a used one. Right now if you want to shoot a real rangefinder that is digital, it's Leica or nothing, and I can afford neither the bodies nor the glass. I'm thinking of the Fuji X100F because the option of using the manual focusing patch would be very appealing to me. I just find I shoot better images if I focus manually. I'm too undisciplined using auto focus and if I don't have to take the time to focus I too often don't take the time for other necessary steps to getting a good photograph. If my circumstances improve, I'd buy a digital Leica and a couple of lenses in a heartbeat, but that is a big if, so I continue my search for the closest thing to a rangefinder experience I can get. Blah blah. Sorry for the blather. I'm afraid I'm becoming a bit of a windbag as I get older. At least at a typewriter.
At the moment, following the appearance of the M10-P and M10-D, you can get a M240 for under $3000 and a M9 for under $2000; glass isn't cheap, but there are also Voigtländer and Zeiss - the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar ZM, which is a fantastic performer and at the very least the equal of the Summicron 50mm f/2 (not the APO, obviously), is $800 new and $500-600 used; the same goes for my favourite M mount lens, the Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f/2.8. I know that for that kind of money, you can get a 42/45MP behemoth with the latest features and a kit zoom, but that's just not the same ... I've also seen the first M10 bodies go for under $5000, btw. More to the point, an M9 and Planar will set you pack less than a 24MP FF camera of the latest generation - below $3000, that is. You'll have all the RF experience you'll ever need and wonderful images. The M10 may be more desirable - but neither of the earlier cameras doesn't have a healthy portion of its appeal.
However, if I'd go for Fuji, the X-Pro2 with the f/2 primes (23mm, 35mm, 50mm) would be my choice over the X100F; you'll pay considerably less than for a Leica setup for a much more modern and versatile concept - yes, it's no real rangefinder, but it's a strong contender, offers the electronic RF patch as well, and it's robust and well-featured if you're not into video. To be completely honest, I've handled that camera and found it a bit light and hollow, but that's just me comparing it to film rangefinders at that time. In reality, t's sturdy, weather-sealed, offers good AF but also very good MF experience, and all that backed by impressive IQ - so, if Leica were out of the question and APS-C were an option, that's what I'd go for (I almost went that way ...). Your entry point would also be below $3000 for the body and *three* primes ...
I'll mention something else here, though: The camera that comes closest in feel and experience is the - comparatively! - frugal Panasonic GX9. It can be described in two ways: a pretty clever set of compromises between concepts - or a very compelling little camera in its own right. It feels dense and well put together in the hand, the
are wonderful, yet well priced (I adore the 15mm f/1.7, but basically, you can pick whichever you like). You can set it up to give you immediate access to MF (or use the dedicated lever to get there if you want it), MF aids are really top-notch. So, maybe that's an option ... It's actually the more modern camera than the X-Pro2, too. But of course, less appealing.
M.