There will likely never be a digital-equivalent to systems like Rollei 35 or a Canonet, an M3 or a XA, etc., to date and foreseeable future. Too many players, too many abused consumers, too much marketing hype and too little substance. I'm sure I missed a few too(s).
The cameras mentioned by others in this thread could be labelled as 'pivotal' or 'landmark' but not 'cult' to my mind. This is especially true if the conversation is about a single model. Frankly, I dislike the term 'cult', but probably could use 'adoration' if it had fewer syllables.
If the question asked for "series" or "systems" with fervent followers (competitors and "victims" may worm another 'f' or two in there somewhere), it may be plausible to answer but unlikely for any individual example.
To wit, there is a "fervent following" for the Canon G-series cameras; but being more specific with the G7 has diminishing merit.
Film is system agnostic, if we must carry the 'cult' tone, and independently has some modicum of passion associated with specific emulsions. Tri-X Pan is a 'classic' film that to this day has a strong, but increasingly depressed, following.
Kodacrhome, for more than the lyric, was a poster child for ardent supporters till digital gained its stride and a subsequently flailing Kodak drove a stake through it's sprockets.
Equally true is the nature of film-camera bodies and their flexibility on a format by format basis. In other words, outside of 120 VS 135, cameras had few concerns about emulsion. The minimum description was a "light-tight box that held film"; the pinhole as a prime example.
The virtually extinct Kodachrome user was not tied to a Canonet 1.7 QLIII and an original XA user was not bound to Ilford. The Kodak Disc, 620, 126 and APS users have not fared so well... much like XD and SM based cameras from earlir digital days.
Possibly the closest general analogue to our current environment might be the Polaroid SX70. Expensive to use, limited and quirky but also unique and generally reliable. To this day, shadows of this "landmark" system and its cult-like following are active, its practitioners are poorer by the shot.
Digital photography has blurred these lines and bonded the components. The qualities of design, ergonomics, electronics, available optics and manufacturing combine to encompass, often in singularity, what was once at least two components of the picture.
The most offensive of the analog between cameras, film and present day is consumability. It once was film but now replaced by the camera body or entire unit lens and all. The illusion of 'free', as so many people perceive, is a fallacy and is indeed, incrementally, the maintenance, reliability and depreciation. Don't conclude any more than the misperception as being the negative, but it does lead to some dysfunctional conversations.
In present day, the only currently manufactured, substantive, cult-like, cameras that I see are still film-based. The modern versions of the Diana, Holga and similar low-fidelity have more recognizable stamina than anything electronic.
Even these are more a 'trend' than a specific model. Even so, it is more akin to dogs and dog owners (some may see the colliery is deeper than the lines I draw), with the different breeds while they all follow a common canine origin. That is a Diana user will happily inspect a Holga's 'bling' (I was tempted to say tripod mount), or lack thereof.
With that I'll leave the last word to my border collie, he may have as strong a point as I:
Grr, woof, bark!
