I'm having a dilemma on what kind of film camera to get, be it a RF or SLR. I'm aware of the differences or qualities that each of the type holds. But is still pretty unsure of which as budget is not really an issue.
They are quite different in terms of system and focusing method.
What do you want it for?
A rangefinder has two notable limitations :
1. parallax error in very close focus; some RF cameras have viewfinders that take care of this, but still not for extreme close-ups
2. limitation of RF system, so longest lenses are limited
RF lenses are ultimately smaller than SLR ones at the same FL, if a small camera is what you need.
If its for collecting, then the good thing about a rangefinder is that it has less mechanical parts compared to a SLR, in case of potential mechanical failure.
The FM2 is more 'renowned' though.
I think it will come down to what type of photography you are into.
I had a R4A for a couple of years, and though it isn't that small (the lenses are tiny though), it attracted less attention than a DSLR when street-shooting. Cosina makes some really good M-mount lenses under the Voigtlander brand (had the 21/4 -- nice!).
If you like long lenses, an SLR is the way to go.
I love RF focusing, but not everyone does. Have you actually tried it?
I use both interchangeably, shooting experience with each is a little different. I probably will not forgo one over the other now, but if you really have to choose one, you might have to go for some hands on shooting first with either system.