What's different about the MP?

[x-ray]

I guess I've been out of touch in the Leica world for a while and am curious about the MP. I know about the original MP models but what is the difference other than the ability to use the rapid winder between the M6 and MP? Why the difference in cost? To me it looks more like the M3, as was the original, with a meter and improved rewind. Why spend the extra money?

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com[FONT=Georgia]

[Justin Viiret]

I don't know that there's a lot of difference between the M3 and the MP, aside from modern manufacturing methods, the viewfinder frames/magnification and the inclusion of a meter. Apart from that, the MP is supposed to be a "classic" mechanical Leica, distinguishing it from the M7 with its electronically controlled shutter, aperture priority AE, etc.

The difference in cost is probably explained by the "classic" idea, too, I'd guess...

[Brian Sweeney]

from what I have read: The MP finder is closer to the M2 and M4, it goes back to including a condensor lens for the framelines that was eliminated to reduce cost in the M4-2. The result is less flare problems. Other items, such as the rewind knob, take it back to the M2 days. The TTL meter is what differentiates its from the older models. An M6 finder can be upgraded with the condensor lens, I think that will run ~$200 or so.

[x-ray]

I didn't know there was a difference in the VF of the M2 and M6 although I've noticed that my M2 is a little easier to focus than my M6. It might be that it has a little better contrast than the M6.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

[jdos2]

My MP's viewfinder flares FAR less than my M6ttl .85 (the worst of 'em, from what I hear) did. Because of the way I work when taking portraits, my rangefinder window has a great view of the sky (I hold the camera DOWN, not UP as it tells me to do in the manual) so it was VERY hard to take pictures at times. It's a very nice improvement.

It's the old story with Leica- they designed cameras to last a long time- so why would one ever buy new? I did because I got tired of playing around with broken things. I also really like the meter in the MP, and I'm lazy... So, it was MP for me.

Also, the MP has a wider finder than the M3.

Otherwise, the quality of construction is similar. I kinda miss the self-timer, but it's not that big a deal.

[Ben Z]

I had an MP for almost 2 years. It got awfully scuffed looking (not the "pretty" soft brass "patina" everyone oohs and aahs about), I had to disassemble the poorly re-designed eyepiece and seal it with automotive caulk to keep the dust bunnys out, and I ended up forking over $180 for the rewind attachment after struggling without it shooting a wedding. I finally sold it, got back what I'd paid (bought as a demo before all the price hikes), took the proceeds and bought 2 M6 Classics and a Voitlander 28/1.9 Ultron in "Bargain" from KEH (would be anyone else's Excellent Plus (or eBay "Mint"!) . The M6 for me does everything the MP did. I'm not affected by the ragefinder white-out enough to bother getting it upgraded, but that's really the only major advantage to the MP as far as I am concerned.

[Roger Hicks]

The Leicavit is an enormous advantage as far as I'm concerned; the viewfinder flares less than my M4P (though more than my M2s); I like the black paint, even though it is getting ratty after 18 months reasonably hard use (about 40 roolls in the last month. for example); and of course unlike the M6ttl and the M7 the shutter speed dial goes the right way. I also like the automatic lens-cap-on indicator, otherwise known as the meter.

Why spend the extra money? To have a new, reliable, metered camera. My M2s are now 45+ years old and inevitably ned servicing and adjusting, and this is the nices new Leica in years, closer to M2/M3 and much nicer than M4-M7.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[Mackinaw]

The MP, when compared to the M6, has the new viewfinder which folks have already mentioned, a revised shutter, different advance gears and materials, new meter electronics, new body coverings, and a brass top plate with the old fashioned engravings. This is probably the first real re-engineering of the M in many a year (maybe since the M3). I've owned an MP since last Novemer and it's an absolute joy to use. My old M3 has now become my back-up camera.

See Irwin Puts' write-up of the MP on his webpage.

Jim Bielecki

[DerekF]

I've owned an MP since last Novemer and it's an absolute joy to use. My old M3 has now become my back-up camera.

Yup, I'll second what Jim said (except about the M3, since I don't have one). I've had my MP for less than a month, got my first two rolls developed recently (Tri-X and Velvia 100) and aside from the obvious focusing snafus (I'm coming from a Nikon FM3a and Olympus OM-2) in the early pictures, I am really pleased with the results. The MP has been a joy to use for me, too.

So, to me, the difference between the M3 and MP also includes the fact that I have an MP but not an M3. :p

[peter_n]

I think its pretty telling that Ben sold his MP amd bought two M6s and a CV wide-angle with the dough. Personally I don't understand the attraction of the MP but to each his own.

[richard_l]

Flare can be a nuisance on the M6, but I can usually get rid of it by rotating the camera 45 degrees or so about the lens axis, focussing, then rotating back to frame the shot. I'm not willing to pay the huge difference between the M6 and the MP in order to get a slightly improved viewfinder. If I want velvety smooth controls and very nice viewfinders, I've got an M2 and an M3. Actually it surprises me that the MP is as popular as it is. I suppose a lot of people are not satisfied unless they have the latest and the greatest. More power to them if they have the money for it.

[FrankS]

I agree, Richard. (Hey, we have the same cameras: M2, 3, and 6.)

[richard_l]

I agree, Richard. (Hey, we have the same cameras: M2, 3, and 6.) I saw where you got the M6 recently. Congratulations on joining the M2,3,6 club.

[FrankS]

Thank you Richard. Any other 2-3-6ers out there?

[back alley]

do 3 p's count?

;)

[Brian Sweeney]

I do not have an MP but can certainly see the appeal in it. Someone wants a new camera and they want the mechanical/optical precision of a 1950's camera in it. The typical "I want the Latest/Greatest" would be after a 10+MPixel digital SLR or 22MPixel digital back. Looking at the MP production, what is most impressive is the craftsmanship that goes into it. For the most part, that has been lost in today's cameras. The MP is a throwback to the '50s. That was when the greatest cameras where introduced. They are certainly not the latest.

With the MP, Leica has renounced the cost cutting measures intruduced with the M4-2 and returned to the "spare-no-expense" to get quality of the M4 and M2. Nikon learned that lesson and finally brought out the SP-2005, replacing the S3-2000. When will we see Canon come out with a Canon 7-TTL?.

[Roger Hicks]

I'm with Brian on this. If you want a meter, that lets out everything except M5-6-7-P. If you want a portable camera, that lets out the M5 (all right, I exaggerate, but only slightly). If ypu want a shutter-speed dial that goes the right way, that lets out M6ttl and M7, leaving only M6 and MP. And if you want a finder that doesn't flare out anything like as badly, it's an MP.

If you don't want a meter, sure, an M2 is great (I have two) but they are 40+ years old now and even Leicas don't last forever without occasional maintenance. I sold my last M3 because 35mm is my standard lens. And the black chrome finish on my M4P is horrible, quite apart from the VF flare.

If I'm shooting fast, as I was last night on Bastille Day (which Americans celebrate 10 days early...) then I don't have time to twiddle the camera about in the way that Richard suggests. A better finder IS worth the money to me, easily.

Cheers,

Roger

[phototone]

I saw where you got the M6 recently. Congratulations on joining the M2,3,6 club.

I wanna join. I have M2, M3, M4-2, M6, CL. Plus other brands, Bessa, Zorki, Fed, Kiev, Contax. Not to mention screw thread Leica's.

[richard_l]

I wanna join. I have M2, M3, M4-2, M6, CL. Plus other brands, Bessa, Zorki, Fed, Kiev, Contax. Not to mention screw thread Leica's. You're in!

[richard_l]

.....If I'm shooting fast, as I was last night on Bastille Day (which Americans celebrate 10 days early...) then I don't have time to twiddle the camera about in the way that Richard suggests. A better finder IS worth the money to me, easily..... I suppose it's possible, but I've never had a problem with viewfinder flare at night, and in the daytime, if I'm in a hurry, I would probably zone focus or use hyperfocal. Still, I can see that if an MP helps get the job done, it can be worth the extra cost. Also, I'm not disputing that it's a beautifully crafted instrument, intrinsically more valuable than a mere M6.

[richard_l]

With the MP, Leica has renounced the cost cutting measures intruduced with the M4-2 and returned to the "spare-no-expense" to get quality of the M4 and M2. Maybe so, but I sure wish they hadn't screwed up on the viewfinder.

[richard_l]

do 3 p's count?

;) You are qualified to be an honorary member.

[Brian Sweeney]

>Maybe so, but I sure wish they hadn't screwed up on the viewfinder

I have only read about the MP viewfinder, but I was under the impression that it was as good as the M2 and M4. I have also read that the elimination of a condensor lens in the M4-2 led to an increase in RF patch flare (EDIT: Erwin Puts states that it was a redesign of the VF/RF optics) . I handled an M6 for a few days and it flared where my M2 did not. It is possible to make the M2 flare, but you have to try pretty hard to do it.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/RFbasics/rfissues.html

[back alley]

You are qualified to be an honorary member.


and i do feel honoured!
many thanks.

joe

[Roger Hicks]

Sure, Richard, it's how you shoot, what you shoot, when you shoot... It's worth it to me but not to you and I am sure there are others who will agree with either of us.

If I'm in a hurry and have the choice I'll pre-focus, and with tab-focus lenses like my old 35/1.4 there's always the option of 'feel focus', but wide-open at night the only real choice for me is a low-flare rangefinder: at folk nights, parties, performances, etc., the MP is simply the best Leica EVER, bar none. My last M3 (also black paint) was smoother and sweeter but no 35mm frame gives the MP the edge for me.

I also like the self-zeroing counter -- you have to pull out the load spool on an M3 as far as I remember.

Cheers,

Roger

[Mackinaw]

The viewfinder of my MP (0.72 mag) is vastly superior to my M3. Much more "saturation" as well as contrast. The rangefinder rectangle is also more pronounced which makes focusing much easier. I like the MP viewfinder so much I'm investigating how much it costs to install a 0.85 MP viewfinder into an M3.

Jim Bielecki

[richard_l]

.....I have only read about the MP viewfinder, but I was under the impression that it was as good as the M2 and M4..... There wa an issue about dust getting in the finder because it was not sealed properly. The problem has since been corrected, but apparently a lot of people had to return their cameras under warranty to have them fixed.

[peter_n]

There was a similar dust issue with the M7 finder that began when they started fitting the MP finders to the M7. I read that Leica also fixed it on the M7 but when I don't know.

[Mackinaw]

When I picked up my M3 back in 1995, the rangefinder part of the viewfinder was so covered with dust it was unuseable. I scale focused for a few months before I finally sent the camera out for a CLA. This was probably an anomoly, but other M series cameras can have dust problems too.

BTW, I have an early production MP with not a trace of dust in the viewfinder (though I, too, have read the stories about dusty MP viewfinders).

Jim Bielecki

[Brian Sweeney]

Most early production cameras have issues that need to be corrected. The Nikon F2 underwent a lot of small internal changes until the 73'xxxxx block. My two earliest F2's are 7101xxx, from the pre-production run. These early ones had some real reliability issues; a friend at work bought them "hot of the press" and had two lock up on their first field experiment. Went back to Nikon F's for all of his field work after that. After corrections, the Nikon F2 is often hailed as one of the best mechanical SLR's of all time. The early F5 had shutter problems; my favorite camera shop advised me to wait a year before getting one when they were first introduced.

[richard_l]

Nikon is notorious for having issues in early production runs of new products. That's just the way Nikon does things. The smart thing to do is to hold off buying new Nikon designs until the bugs are worked out.

However, it is unfortunate for there to be an issue with a product (the MP) which is designed to showcase the legendary high quality of the early Ms. With the MP one is supposedly getting quality rather than innovative design. The viewfinder seal issue is not really a big deal, but it is a disappointment.

[Brian Sweeney]

I worked in a camera shop in the 70's while working my way through college. Most newly introduced cameras had issues. The Olympus OM-1MD had a 15% failure rate. Canon AE-1, Nikon FM, Nikon FE, not as bad but we saw them returned. By that time the F2A and F2AS were out (78' block); I never saw one of those come back as defective out of the box.

It is always best to buy from a store that has an exchange (for NIB) period of 14~30 days or so before going over to repair work. I suspect that Epson's RD-1 1-year replacement policy issues rebuilt cameras, otherwise we would be seeing deep-discount rebuilt RD-1's all over.

[sgy1962]

My impressions, from owning an M6 Classic; M6ttl; and a now an MP, is that the build quality of the MP exceeds that of the M6, which is saying alot, as the M6 is of very high quality. If the M6 is solidly built, like a rock, then the MP is like a tank. Just my impression. Also, before getting rid of the M6, I determined that the shutter is a bit quieter. No real practical differences, except for what's mentioned above. If I had to do it again, I may have just kept the M6.

[peter_n]

I love the phrase "my impressions" from sgy1962 above.

A quiet shutter is paramount for me because of a long project I'm working on. I tried a number of Leicas in stores when I bought my first one and to be honest, you cannot make a generalization to a model range on the basis of a sample of one, even with Leica's legendary small sample-to-sample variation.

I ended up with an M6TTL and I was lucky in that the sample I got (from Rich Pinto) has a quiet shutter. I bought a new M7 a couple of weeks ago and if anything that is even quieter although not by much. I have tried other M7s that were noisier. I'm sure that is true of most of the other attributes of these cameras, even with the Leica small production variations.

It just amazes me that forums are full of anecdotal threads that are taken as seriously as statistically significant sample results. I understand the value of personal experience with this or that product but the amount of generalization that goes on from empirical underpinnings that are essentially sand is pretty funny. So long as people understand that "this is better than that", "this one works wrong but that one works right" kinds of posts are personal opinion colored by personal experience we will all stay sane.

The best example I can think of is a well-known (ex) poster on photo.net who is a dentist. He was (is) an absolute expert on the technicalities of all things Leica with an extremely clever and bitingly sarcastic tongue. I'm sure denizens of PN know who I'm talking about. If you believed this guy and did exactly the same kind of photography as he did, you did OK. But if you had different needs for your equipment you could end up in big trouble if you followed his advice without thinking. Unfortunately he did not understand that his impressions didn't apply to the universe of Leica users out there, and he crashed out of the forum in a flame war that took out several other casualties as well. Another reason to really like this forum because those things don't seem to happen here. :)

[eloquentlight]

Alright, I'll admit that I've had MP envy for a couple of months. I love my M6, but I am hesitant to spend the thousand bucks to upgrade to the MP. Do you all think that an MP is worth a thousand dollar upgrade from an M6TTL?

[Steve Hoffman]

Well, the current "international" price in the USA is $2,350.00 NEW give or take a few bucks. What do you think? Is your M6 falling apart? If so, do it. Or, sell it and upgrade. It's a nice camera but it takes pictures just like an M6; the finder is better but the rest works about the same.

[richard_l]

Alright, I'll admit that I've had MP envy for a couple of months. I love my M6, but I am hesitant to spend the thousand bucks to upgrade to the MP. Do you all think that an MP is worth a thousand dollar upgrade from an M6TTL? I don't think the MP would be exactly an upgrade from the M6TTL; I would consider it more of an upgrade from the M6.

I personally would rather "downgrade" from my M6 to a minty M4 than upgrade to a new MP.

[dr.kollig]

The viewfinder of my MP (0.72 mag) is vastly superior to my M3. Much more "saturation" as well as contrast. The rangefinder rectangle is also more pronounced which makes focusing much easier. I like the MP viewfinder so much I'm investigating how much it costs to install a 0.85 MP viewfinder into an M3.

Jim Bielecki

Having a total of 3 M3 I would recommend a cleaning of the viewfinder. Early this year CRR Luton/GB did a total service on a late M3 (#1064...) including chemical cleaning of the viewfinder, and this vf is much better than the other units.
Low contrast in the vf in my case is usually related to fingerprints and dirty glasses on my nose
;) So in one Leica shop they hand me a cleaning tissue almost every time I come in, these days I guess I have enough microfibre to put one into every suit!

I prefer my M3s so much that I bought a Summicron 35 for M3, just to be able to use a 35 on M3. Now if I could only fit brightlines 75 mm into M3 I could throw out the MP.

Of course I need 3 M3:
- Noctilux (set up together)
- 90/2
- Normal (50 or 35)

Consider having the M3 vf rather cleaned than exchanged!

Wolfram

[Roger Hicks]

As a happy MP user there is NO Leica I'd swap for it. But if you're used to an M6ttl can you handle a shutter speed dial that goes the right way, i.e. like every other Leica except M6ttl and M7?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[jaapv]

If your M6 viewfinder flares a bit, just give it some shade by holding your right hand horizontal, Red-Indian style. I might add that I'm lucky, my M6TTL is the most silent Leica I ever had, maybe because it was a factory demonstrator, sold as checked and adjusted by Leica.