MP vs M6

[Stan98103]

I don’t know if I ate too much turkey last week, but I feel a little GAS coming on.

I've been thinking about getting Leica gear for some time. Although I like the AE mode on my G2 and Nikon gear, I've ruled out the M7 for a number of reasons - the blinking red led if exposure compensation or non-DX ISO is set, funky DX contacts, and the desire to have an all manual system. I'd like a built-in meter, so that narrows my choices to an M6 or MP.

I wear glasses, but I will probably be shooting mostly with 35mm (or longer) lenses, so the 0.72 viewfinder seems to be the way to go. I've play around a bit with both an M6 TTL 0.58 and an M7 0.72 and different lenses. With the 0.72 VF I can easily see the 35mm bright lines, but I have to hunt for the 28mm bright lines. I liked the feel and the way that the shutter speed dial turns on the M6 TTL (the same as on my G2 and also more intuitively set to match the led arrows). If I decide on an M6 I would probably prefer a TTL. I want a camera that is in excellent to very good condition. I definitely want a chrome model, even though we're all well aware that black cameras take better photos.

Chrome M6 TTL 0.72 cameras on ebay seem to be going for $1300-$1900 plus shipping and insurance. I've never bought anything on ebay, and I'm a bit leery about the process. What is the likelihood that I would have to have such a camera CLAed after I purchased it? How much does a CLA typically cost?

I could get a "used like new" MP from Popflash.photo with a one year warranty for $2,397 with free shipping. This is a more expensive but hassle-free alternative. Over the lifetime of the camera (or me), the extra cost may be worth it.

The main differences between the MP and M6 TTL seem to be the rewind knob, viewfinder, shutter speed dial and cosmetics. Am I missing anything else?

I've heard that the viewfinder on the M6 is more prone to flare than the viewfinder on the MP. I've also heard the viewfinder on the MP is more prone to accumulating dust. Does anyone care to comment on this?

What about comments on the difference between rewind knobs on the MP vs the M6? I don’t think I would have a problem with either direction on the shutter speed dial direction once I used either camera for a while. Red dot or no red dot - I don't care.

Is there anything else I should be considering?

Thanks,

Stan

Does anyone on RFF have a chrome M6 TLL in excellent condition up for sale?

[richard_l]

The MP doesn't have TTL flash metering. It is more like the M6 than the M6 TTL.

[SolaresLarrave]

Richard beat me to it. As a proud M6TTL owner... I'd recommend them. The MP is pretty, sure has a flare-proof VF too, but it's just a souped-up M3 (i.e., with a meter).

The thing is still your call. Hold them in your hands but let me warn you: when you look through the MP viewfinder and the meter tells you the shot is under exposed, try NOT to turn the shutterspeed dial in the same direction the meter arrow-shaped lights point. You will worsen the situation. I believe, however, that you can turn the aperture ring according to the arrow, but can you think about it while in the middle of a shoot?

As for places to get an M6TTL, let me tell you some: KB Camera, KEH, Koh's Camera and National Camera & Video Exchange. All of them have websites, all the people are very knowledgeable too. Good luck!

[cp_ste.croix]

The MP is pretty, sure has a flare-proof VF too, but it's just a souped-up M3 (i.e., with a meter).



That's kinda why I want one...

[markinlondon]

I'd agree with Francisco on the benefits of the M6TTL, only to add that not only does the shutter dial turn the "right" way with regard to the meter leds, but that it's a lot easier to reach than the old style. There are lots of M6TTL's around just now while the MP is still new and much more expensive.

Mark

[rich815]

I went through this too and after handling both went with the MP. I got mine used in like new condition from a reputable NY dealer (and with an "informal" 2 years left on the passport----any problem, I send to them, they submit for me in old owner's name) for $2300. Not that I did not like the M6 but in essence what I wanted WAS a souped up M3 with a meter. Not to dis' the M6 but the feel in the hand, the movements and the smoothness just did not match the MP. And in terms of the TTL? I rarely use flash, but the time I have with the MP I used a flash with a "eye" sensor and the photos came out great.

Good news is you will not go wrong with either.

[Frank Granovski]

I read TTL flash metering doesn't work well (by the experts on p.nut).

[glchua]

I have the MP 0.58, MP 0.85 and M6 classic all chrome. Minimum electronic parts is what I look for, hence the choice.

The MP is smoother and slightly heavier than the M6. The shutter release on the MP has a better feel too. I don't have any flare problems with the M6. But from what I see, very little difference between M6 and MP to justify the price difference.

The slightly taller M6 TTL makes the chrome version a little odd looking from my eyes, but that's just me.

My MP 0.58 accumulated some dust after about 1-2 years of use. No dust on the M6 even though its about 10 years old.

As for the rewind knob, I like the MP ones better. If I stop rewinding on the M6, there's always this annoying un-rewind and the lever is also not comfortable. Rewind is slower on the MP though, maybe double the time.

Hope this helps.

[richard_l]

As for the rewind knob, I like the MP ones better. If I stop rewinding on the M6, there's always this annoying un-rewind and the lever is also not comfortable. Rewind is slower on the MP though, maybe double the time.Anybody who is going to be in an all-fired hurry to rewind/reload should carry a second camera (or else go digital). I prefer the rewind on the M3 and M2 better than the M6 for the same reason: it doesn't spring back when I stop winding.

I read TTL flash metering doesn't work well.....You mean there are people who actually use a dedicated TTL flash unit with their M6TTL? Wow! :rolleyes: (I'm being a tad sarcastic.) Maybe relying too much on automatic features and not enough on the brain is part of the problem.

[Mackinaw]

The MP is probably the first substantial re-engineering of the M series since the M3. Many, many minor, but significant, changes. The viewfinder now incorporates a special lens that greatly reduces the chance of viewfinder flare (I've yet to see any flare with my MP). The MP viewfinder is also contrastier and more "saturated" than the M6. The top plate of the MP is now brass, not zinc like the M6. The meter electronics have been revised as well as several of the film advance gears. The shutter has also been re-engineered. The black version is now laquer and not black chrome like the M6. The MP also has a different "leatherette" when compared to the M6. And last, but not least, the classic Leica logo has reappeared on the top plate of the MP in contrast to the blank top plate of the M6.

As for the MP viewfinder dust problem, early MPs' did have this problem which has since been corrected (my MP serial number 289XXXX, purchased new last November, shows no dust at all in the viewfinder and tthe camera has seen a lot of use in the past twelve months).

I say go for the MP, hand's down the best camera I've ever owned.

Jim Bielecki

[richard_l]

I say go for the MP, hand's down the best camera I've ever owned.

Jim BieleckiYour post shows that you're really fond of your MP. Congratulations on finding a camera which satisfies your photographic needs. It is a great feeling, although for me it is not the MP.

[Ponsoldt]

I bought an MP recently. I own a Canon mark II as well. My thought was if I wanted to have an automated camera I would use the Canon. If I want to use my own sense of what is correct and adjust everything to my liking I use the MP.

Althought I must say initially, it was rought getting used to the different focusing method and all manual controls. I know find that I would rather use the MP then the Canon.

In terms of the M6 and the MP, I sprung for the newer camera. I had the thoght that leica might move more toward the all automated cameras in the future and I believe, correct me if I am wrong, the mp is smaller then the m6.

Bill

[SolaresLarrave]

The MP (like all the M bodies) is a wee bit shorter than the M6TTL. In this one, the TTL electronics add a few milimiters to the body height.

BTW... I did like the MP when I had a chance to handle one. It is a weird experience... There I was, having shot Leicas for over a year, yet I couldn't get over the fact of the "buttery" feeling of the advance film lever. Try describing that to someone who's not into cameras! ;)

However... considerations about the shutterspeed dial and the direction of the meter lights convinced me that I was better off with my M6TTL.

BTW, I'm one of those who rely on the electronics of my cameras. If it's there... why not use it?

In any case... sometimes I wish I had an MP. Bu then, most of the time I'm incredibly happy with my current M6TTL gear, so, unless I manage to snatch one, I'll keep recommending the M6TTL.

[ERV]

The MP is probably the first substantial re-engineering of the M series since the M3. Many, many minor, but significant, changes.


I would say that the M5 was the first substantial re-engineering of the M series.
In my opinion the MP is more an evolution of the m3-2-4-6 linage. Aside from the cosmetic and mechanical improvements, the P is not based on a truly original design or engineering concept.
While many consider the m5 to be the outcast of the m family, it was the last time that Leica completely re-thought, redesigned, and re-engineered (for better or worse) the concept of the rangefinder.
Viva m5!

[JoNL]

If I remember correctly, the MP meter is one stop more sensible in dim light than the M6TTL meter.

[Ben Z]

I owned an MP for over a year, bought as a demo. I sold it for what I paid, took the money and bought two M6 Classics (in "bargain" grade, one had a slight abrasion and the other some full-of-himself poser had blacked out the white engravings, which I repainted) and a Voitlander 28/1.9 (also had the engravings blacked out by a poser). Now I have 2 functional M bodies and a fine lens instead of one body that was rapidly becoming ugly as sin. Unlike some people who think a beat looking camera is a symbol of being a prolific photographer, to me a beat looking camera is a symbol of carelessness and lack of appreciation for the hard work I put into making the money that bought it. Whatever differences, real or imagined, exist between the MP and M6, for me they work equally as tools...well, equally once I got the $185 rewind crank for the MP.

[Rafael Macia]

Stan,
You should be able to tell by all the above strong feelings that you are better to decide for yourself what to do. I have owned M's since 1968, and each new model has new aspects and features that never apapeal to everyone. I recently had an M7 and the size of it compared to the M6 didn't appeal to me. Now I have an MP, and have yet to see the benifit of the "step backwards "rewind knob. Maybe I will. My point is you just need towith decide what makes the most sense to YOU. YOU can also hunt around now and find a new MP with passport for a good price. New Is NEW. With a body new is best. A lens can be a demo. I think one new is better than 2 used. (My taste only).
Ralph

[einolu]

get an m4 and a good hand held meter

;)

[LazyHammock]

I have the M6 TTL, I had a M4-P previously and I haven't tried the MP (other than a little camera store fondling). The M6 handles very well and the rotation of the shutter speed dial and aperture ring is very intuitive, with respect to the meter symbols, when the camera is at your eye. I doubt you'll notice a 2mm difference affecting the handling of the M6 TTL over the MP. I bought mine used for less than $1300, it is very clean (silly plastic thing still on the base) and I see no need to run out and get a CLA yet. I see no advantages to paying $1000 more for the MP, I'd spend it on more glass.

As you have seen there are wildly varying opinions on each camera! Good luck!

[celluloidprop]

FYI, the M7 doesn't blink when you set film speed manually, only if you use the exposure compensation (and it's not that annoying).

No way would I spring for an MP, I can't understand why anyone would. An M6 classic is just as much camera at less than half the price - right at half if you choose to get it CLA'd. TTL flash is only necessary if you're using a lot of flash with filters.

[richard_l]

.....In terms of the M6 and the MP, I sprung for the newer camera. I had the thoght that leica might move more toward the all automated cameras in the future and I believe, correct me if I am wrong, the mp is smaller then the m6.....I believe the M6 and the MP are the same size.

[rich815]

IMO opinion, as I mention above, after handling both the M6 is not "just as much camera at half the price". Yes, I would go so far as to say since it's not half the camera that the M6 is it can certainly be considered a better buy...however, the MP (at least to my subjective opinion), is a better built and smoother operating camera. When I decided to go Leica "better buy" was not on my list of reasons to do so.

Of course we could argue this all day: both are capable of doing their job and doing it very very well. M6 people will defend why they bought and like their M6, MP people will do their best to justify why they spent more. All are valid arguements, especially to the person that makes them. Can't we all just get along? :D

One small but definite possible benefit to the old-fashion rewind is the more likely tendency to rewind too fast in cold, dry weather, which has been known to potentially cause static electricity problems on film. Big issue? Likely not for most but hey, it's something!

I thought the old-fashinoned rewind would be troublesome when I first got my M3 and soon after my MP, but in all honesty it takes maybe another 8-10 seconds to rewind---big deal! Plus with the handle spinning-type rewind at least half the time I'd slip and lose all the time I saved anyway in re-engaging, taking up the loose film the slipping caused, and continuing the rewind. I guess I could be more careful and go slower---but then the benefit is even less time saved....

[Doug]

...Plus with the handle spinning-type rewind at least half the time I'd slip and lose all the time I saved anyway in re-engaging, taking up the loose film the slipping caused, and continuing the rewind....I agree, Rich; I don't mind the knob rewind at all. I wonder if losing control of the crank and then "re-engaging" involves unnecessary abrasion as the film rubs against itself and the cassette. I guess a motor-rewind is another way to maintain smooth tension as the film is rewound...

[Frank Granovski]

You mean there are people who actually use a dedicated TTL flash unit with their M6TTL? Wow!Then they wasted their money on the wrong model unless they got a deal. :)

[ezio gallino]

I would say that the M5 was the first substantial re-engineering of the M series.
In my opinion the MP is more an evolution of the m3-2-4-6 linage. Aside from the cosmetic and mechanical improvements, the P is not based on a truly original design or engineering concept.
While many consider the m5 to be the outcast of the m family, it was the last time that Leica completely re-thought, redesigned, and re-engineered (for better or worse) the concept of the rangefinder.
Viva m5!

Improving in M models has stopped around 1970-5 in coincidence with the marriage of reflex strategy, and the adoption of M5: two terrible flops.
What saved Leica was the canadian prodution of cheaper engineered M4-2 (in order to contain even a part of costs who grew astronomically), who suffered of a drastical cost cutting, and filled with lower quality components.
Only with Mp (and M7), original quality has been reapproched in order to make something similar to golden age (at high price).
Is it sufficient to compare shooting hearing between an M6 and a MP to understand the difference.....

What you say about M5 is true, but market rejected it (maybe too big, when leica had always had a feel of compactness...) and long after production stopped shop were full of unsold item. It was not what leica people (after 20 years of M3) wanted: a big marketing mistake.

A litlle like Porsche 911 and 928.... 928 was a perfect car, but not a Porsche...

[richard_l]

What saved Leica was the canadian prodution of cheaper engineered M4-2 (in order to contain even a part of costs who grew astronomically), who suffered of a drastical cost cutting, and filled with lower quality components.
Only with Mp (and M7), original quality has been reapproched in order to make something similar to golden age (at high price).....Damn! My M6 is a piece of crap. :rolleyes:

[Ben Z]

Only with Mp (and M7), original quality has been reapproched in order to make something similar to golden age (at high price).
Is it sufficient to compare shooting hearing between an M6 and a MP to understand the difference.....

I'd have to put my trust in the opinion of DAG or Sherry K on that issue, and they both say the MP is not better made than the M6, with the exception of the rangefinder mirror and condenser lens to reduce the blanking out of the rangefinder rectangle in very specific conditions.

[ezio gallino]

I'd have to put my trust in the opinion of DAG or Sherry K on that issue, and they both say the MP is not better made than the M6, with the exception of the rangefinder mirror and condenser lens to reduce the blanking out of the rangefinder rectangle in very specific conditions.

quoting Erwin Puts:

"The M3 is composed of about 860 parts, counting every screw and washer. The M7 has 1300 parts, and again every electronic component has been counted as a separate part. 350 of these parts are new and/or improved parts when comparing to the M6TTL. Two hundred of those parts are electronic and 150 are mechanical. "
"The shutter has been improved and changed substantially. In addition the top cover is now machined out of one piece of brass. The slow speed geartrain is gone, but electronics have been added. The total weight has been increased to 610 grams (10 grams more than the M6TTL) and the Leica R6.2 has a weight of 625 grams. The weight of the M7 adds to the stability when using slow speeds and is also an indication of the solidity of the engineering and the ample use of steel and glass. M3 cameras from 1954 are still functioning perfectly after more than 50 years of use. They have a working life of at least 50 years and with some care will function for the next 50 years too. The M7 would be able to function till 2102 at least. That would cover three generations of photographers. The shutter is designed for 100.000 pictures before showing any sign of wear! You can shoot 2700 rolls of film before you could detect any tear or wear in the moving parts."
"The shutter curtains are more light tight and the occasional light leaks of the older shutter curtains are now extinct. Even more important is the improved mechanical geometry of the shutter. As has been explained in the M7 review the shutter curtains have an acceleration and deceleration moment, when speed is building up and the curtain mass must be braked. Here we have an area of variable geometry and a careful redesign of the rollers and springs and braking elements has resulted in a very even movement over the travel length. Occasionally users have noted very small darker bands at the sides of the frame as a result of the shutter movement being too slow at the start and stop moments. With the new design there should be no problem.

Gears and other moving parts have been improved by a new shape and surface treatment, which will increase the mean time before failure and enhances the smoothness of the operation. The current manufacturing procedures and assembly methods allow for a slight tolerance in the selection of matching parts and some users, when comparing the M6 or M7 with a finely tuned M3 will notice a certain roughness when transporting the film or pressing the two way shutter release. With the MP there is no such thing: all operations are extremely smooth and in direct comparison to my M3 even show improvements in smoothness and noise reduction. I checked several MP models and all were alike."

This is not to say anything against M4-2,M4-P,and M6 quality , who are to be interpreted as products of that period, and it was mandatory to control costs maintaning core quality as possible (bodie cast of zinc, some use of plastic in the components, less expensive coatings...), leaving photo quality unalterated.

This is just to say that in new millenium many customers are happy to pay a litte (still!) more if they can have a "state of the art" jewel, justifying costly materials, making something near swiss luxury watches rather than a easy obsolete camera.

Digital will be next round.... we'll see.

[FPjohn]

Hello:

My impression is that the MP is ment to approach the M3 in actual and perceived quality. I do not have one to comment on but can say that the order of quality and feel of the three Ms that I have is definitely M3>M6>>M4(Midland). The M6 (Wetzlar) was a big leap back towards the general feel of the M3 but it still feels light by comparison. I leave an arca lens plate on it or a hand grip-it balances better.

'purely one man's meat and this is comparing 3 individual cameras. Even the benighted M4 produces images no worse than the other two!

yours
Frank