>>4411856>but cheaperDoesn't really work like that, the money is why they're viewed with status. People who know enough about cameras to identify a Leica model and know what it is, are likely also going to know if you're holding a cheaper copy.
>Canon rangefindersThe Canon copies of the Barnack Leicas definitely do look like Barnack Leicas but Barnack Leicas aren't that expensive to begin with in comparison to M series models. The later Canon rangefinder that evolved from their Leica copies look a bit more like M series models but they're obviously and doggedly Japanese. The prettiest of these also look just a bit uglier than the ugliest M mount Leica, the M5. They also don't really feel like Leicas, though for the time they were great cameras in their own rite.
>Nikon rangefindersSame sort of story for Nikon S models.
>Soviet leica copiesMuch the same as any other Barnack Leica copies. Some later zorkis do have a little tinfoil advance lever and a weird rope/twine look leatherette that makes them look really cheap.
>KievThis might be your best bet. They're copies of Contax, not Leicas, but they're really cheap and built really well for how cheap they are. The lenses are harder to find because they're a contax mount not L39 or M mount. They're obviously not Leicas, but no one can read what it says on the front anyway and they're quite good looking. Especially the black ones.
