MP3 difference
 

I've the MP 3 and I believe that it has a different eyepiece to the MP. It looks more like the M6. Can anyone confirm? I'm still breaking it in but it certainly a beautiful camera to use and very smooth. It feels tighter than a standard MP I used to have.

Yes, the MP3 has the "standard" eyepiece. Leica did a beautiful job on that one.

This also means you can use the protective rubber eyepiece ring for the M6 on the MP3. That way you don't have to ruin your $1000 glasses with a $4500 camera.

/T

Not to beat a dead horse, the repost of Tom's post really doesn't satisfy any standard of attribution. While it's pretty clear that the poster did not intend to pass off Tom's words as his own, it is what it is: a naked copy made on a forum site under the re-poster's name with only Tom's signature at the end to indicate that it isn't the re-poster's work.

In this case, we're fine, as Tom is OK with it.

In other cases, it is NOT fine. It is illegal. You can make a judgement as to whether you can lift a casual quote from someone and post it elsewhere, but you have NO right to do so. The words are their copyright. This applies all over the internet, and all other media. This is not a limitation on freedom - freedom is not maintained by stealing other people's creations.

[quote=BillBlackwell]"According to Leica and my own experience this is not correct."

>Well, I suppose we disagree. My I offer a frendly response?

Of course you may, it's a free country (or at least that's what they tell me).

Can we then agree to say that the MP/M7 is an evolution of the M6-series?

But even if that is the case, I have an M7 and TTL sitting in front of me (the MP is back with it's owner) and frankly the M7 looks and feels a lot tighter and polished.

And it's not just because one has 10 years worth of scratches and dings on it. There are some obvious differences between the two. As I mentioned earlier the rewind knob on my ttl looks really ratty and it's fit and finish is lousy. It doesn't help that it's black anodized finish doesn't even properly match the topplate. This was a factory new unit, not a Frankenstein job that was pieced together from parts. The M7/MP interior looks a little tighter and it certainly is a lot smoother in operation. In comparison, even after hundreds of rolls my ttl feels like you are cocking an AK-47, but that's an improvement. When bought it, it felt like a coffee grinder.

HL

Can't say for TTL :) but AK (both old and 74 version) are quite well made. Cocking it didn't feel that bad at all.

As I indicated prior, I have to concede to you on this point.

Perhaps ten years ago I bought my first M6. It was a very early Wetzlar model in silver chrome (these are supposed to be notorious "coffee grinders"). I shot it side-by-side with my M2 and never noticed any difference in build tolerances - even the film advance seemed equally smooth. In fact I thought all of that talk of the radically unsmooth M6 film advance was somewhat of a placebo. Anyway, I sold that M6 in order to help finance my new LHSA MP in 2004.

As it turns out I had an exceptional model, because about a year later I bought another M6 (a later one in black chrome with serial number just under 2 million). With this one, I experienced the "classic M6" feel. While I think the "coffee grinder" analogy fits, I have never experienced what you have regarding fit and finish. After using it for a while, I got used to the M6 "coffee grinder" film advance. But I do now appreciate the smoother MP film advance.

Joop, you had to start this over, eh?

I just wanted to say thanks to Tom and everyone else who has replied to this thread. It never ceases to amaze me just how much there is to know about M-bodies, along with the mystique that surrounds them. It's always funny how everyone has a different opinon when it comes to even simple comparisons too.

Cheers! :)

>It's always funny how everyone has a different opinon when it comes to even >simple comparisons too.

On Planet Leica nothing is simple...
:)


HL

A minor point on operation. It is better to use a Mini-Softie rather than a classic Softie on the M7 and M8. This is because using the on/off switch on both cameras tends to loosen the classic Softie and make it fall off. After losing several I changed to the Mini and have not had that problem since.

It seems to me that this matter of 'build quality' has been over done. What's more, no one can really say much about it without considerable experience with every model ever put out. Maybe those who do repair and CLA work on such cameras would have a better take on the matter.

The one and only Leica I have ever owned is an M4-2, which yes, was after the M-5. I bought it new in 1983, somewhat after production had ended and the M4-P was out. But the only difference was viewfinder frames for 70mm and 28mm lenses, and I figured I didn't need those, since I already had a stable full of SLRs. I bought the M4-2 primarily because I had spent half of my life wanting an RF Leica, and that year I got enough of an income tax refund to pull it off. I might also mention that the prices in those days were a fraction of current prices.

A good bit of ink has been used up over this build quality idea, and some feel the Canadian-produced models (including mine) weren't quite up to snuff. But so far I'm a long ways from wearing out my M4-2, so frankly, I'm not too worried about the whole matter.

I just picked up a 91 m6 serial 19....... is there any way to determine how smoothly it winds without winding an M3 or MP?

??Guess you never tried a finnish version? After that any AK version feels bad.

I would say, no. IMO, these things are very subjective anyway and if it feels smooth to you now, then I wouldn't worry about it.

I had an early Wetzlar M6 that felt as smooth as either of the other two M cameras I owned at the time (an M2 and an MP). In fact I, for years I called the RF Smoothness issue "the film advance placebo." That is, until I purchased a classic M6 (sr. 2,1xx,xxx), which felt bad in comparison to any M camera I had ever had prior - it was as if a gear was damaged and not quite lining up. I called DAG and described the condition; his reply was "that sounds like an M6." A CLA, which DAG performed, did not change the condition.

Later, it never bothered me unless I used one of my other Leica M cameras.

Ok, thanks Bill. I would say mine feels perfectly fine. Nothing is not smooth about it and nothing is "this feels like a dream."

OK, this is getting fairly off-topic :) People interested in camera build quality can freely skip this post.

No, I didn't. I did however try Heckler and Koch G36 and G3 rifles here in Norway and can compare them to standard Soviet issue AK-74. While H&K is neat, comes with some cool extras and very likely gives more precision of fire, they aren't worlds apart from AK in terms of build and finish.

Mind you, there are millions of AK copies made by 3rd parties: mainly China, but also Hungary, DDR, Yugoslavia and so on. Original Kalashnikov rifles made in USSR/Russia comprise about 10% of the market, and people infer a lot about design by looking at copies made in Cultural Revolution's era China. There is a huge difference in build depending on origin, and it is recognized: in militant parts of 3rd world a Soviet issue weapon can command 10x price of its copy.

Hi all...
I just happened onto this Thread, and I'm glad that it's still alive and kicking. Perhaps a Mod will see fit to make it Sticky.

I've had an M2 for 35 years, having been lucky enough to find one in Tel Aviv for a good price, with the Summaron 35/2.8. It was used professionally for 15 years, until I quit PJ in the early 1990's. For sure, the thumb wind was rammed home 10,000 times and more, and the M2 had a CLA around 15 years ago.

Only recently did I rediscover the M2. A Jupiter 8, 50/2... specially modified to the Leica standard is now on it with a quality Bower adapter. I've just finished a test roll and shall post new pix soon.
Ciao,

I have had M2's since the early 60's. I used M3 prior, but the M2 and a 35 has always been my "standard" kit. The lenses might vary (35f2.8/f2/f1,4/f1.2 or whatever is handy), but the body stays the same.
Some of these M2's have had 1000's of rolls through them and they have stayed reliable. Occasionally you have slower shutter speeds lock up and insist on being B only (usually a cry for a CLA!) and in a few instances the long take up shaft and loading spool require some service.They can wear to the point that the spool slips and you get overlaps on the negs. A bit of poking and prodding with a screwdriver usually helps here!
For some reason my M2's suffer less from misaligned viewfinders than any of the M3's or M4's and it is not because I baby them. They all carry distinct marks from use - dings and dents galore and my theory is that if I can be outside in the weather. so can the camera.
These days I have multiple M2's (many multiples!) and thus individual camera get less film through them than before. Interestingly enough, there are favourites among them. The miniscule difference between bodies in advance. release and rewind tends to creat favourites. I have tried to measure these factors, but in most cases the diffrences are so small that it is not within the measuring scales. However, the hand and the finger remembers!

Is is possible to generalize between earlier and later production M2 bodies, or do they come out about the same?

I have never found a big difference between the early M2 and the later ones from a mechanical point of view. Personally I avoid the "press" button rewind as I find that it tends to pop midroll when you are rewinding, or even worse - on the earliest M2's #926xxx, you had to hold it in while rewinding.
There were some improved coating in the finder on the very last ones, but I have never found that it really made a difference. I suspect that the biggest decision to make on a user M2 is weather you really need a selftimer or a preview lever.

So Tom, I've read your articles for years in the Viewfinder...I think I know the answer to this question, but if offered an M2 or an M4, would you take the M2? Why???

It is very simple, the M2 has three frames,35/50/90 and as I rarely use 135 the added frame in the M4 is irritating. The M4 also has the angled rewind crank and I do not know how many of these I have bent or jammed tight. I also find that I can rarely rewind a whole roll on a M4 sryle rewind without loosing the grip on the "knob". The M2 has a substantial knob that is easy to hold on to.
There is also the fact that I started shooting with M3's and quickly adapted to the M2's because of the 35 frame.
As an added benefit, I can make a Rpaidwinder for the M2 without any modification to the body. The M4 requires either a M6 type intermediate drive or the M4M/Mot type long shaft attchement.
With a couple of M2's, a 21 and a 35/50 lens kit you can do just about anything you can expect from a rangefinder and if you add a small compact 90 you should be all set.
In the end it is the picture that counts and sometimes putting to much complexity between us and the subject slows us down.

:D Thanks, Tom! One thing...I have been shooting one M or another since 1972 and I must be a klutz of some rare kind because I actually tend to lose my grip on the M3 rewind knob more often than on the M4-style crank! I did some searching last night and read your points about the frame counter with interest. Thanks for your generosity sharing your time here.

M6 winder comment. Phew, I got rid of my 91 M6 (190,000ish) and got a 96 M6 (220,000ish serial). The winder is really nice in comparison, I love winding now.