Have I posted in this thread yet? Not sure. Too much thinking about cameras. Grrr.
I have both the M7 and the Ikon. The Ikon was my first rangefinder, purchased in 2008, and the M7 followed in 2010 about six months after I bought my M9. Much has been said about the differences between them, so I will only add my personal feelings.
I like the Ikon as a shooter. The metering is very accurate, the ergonomics are nice, and the body is very light compared with the M7. Being able to load the film with a hinged back is a real plus, not to mention being able to see what film you've loaded in the little window at the back. The viewfinder is a revelation and it tucks the shutter speeds off to the side, rather than down the bottom where they can be distracting.
But the Ikon doesn't have the same solidity as the M7. Squeeze the Ikon's top plate and there is a bit of give, something you'll never feel in the Leica. The shutter sound of the Ikon is a sharp and metallic 'spang' which is a bit annoying compared with the muted 'klop' of the Leica. But this solidity is also a bit of the M7's pitfall, as it is much more noticeable around the neck or over the shoulder. Carry it for a whole day and you know about it. Carry the Ikon and you'll only just notice it. You often hear about people raving how the M whatever is so light, you can carry it anywhere. I feel like I could brain a mugger with the M7 and still take photos afterwards, whereas the Ikon feels like it would come apart if it met someone's head.
Shooting the M7 is a gorgeously tactile experience, full of rounded curves and smooth action. The Ikon is a bit 'gritty', a very workmanlike feeling. The Ikon in operation grunts, "I vill take your fotos," whereas the M7 murmurs, "Jaaaa, now we take ze fotos, ja?"
