A little game: MP or M3?

[loquax ludens]

I have an M3. I'm keeping it, but I'm again considering an à la carte MP. Lots of research, lots of dreaming, lots of fun configuring it... If I decide to pull the trigger, the waiting (which I understand is usually 6 to 8 weeks) won't be fun.

[mike rosenlof]

Originally Posted by kmallick

how about a Zeiss Ikon ZM? great viewfinder (comparable to M3), AE and a much better price to boot.

I think this would be my choice if I were going to spend that on a 35mm camera right now.

[kshapero]

I went with an M3 (Solms CLA) and 50 mm 'Cron and 21/3.4 with external viewfinder. I am happy.

[kshapero]

I also have CV 40 which many know, works just fine.

[kemal_mumcu]

Black paint and a wider finder for 28/35 lenses would tip me in favour of an MP. The M3 looks nicer though. Goggled 35's can turn an M3 into a 35mm shooter. I always waver between black paint and chrome. Because I have chrome I think I want black paint. My finances make it easy - M3.

[gavinlg]

Black chrome MP thanks. M3 is meter less and 50mm only which is a no no, and black paint is gimmicky to me.

[Todd.Hanz]

Id have to agree, chose the focal lengths you use most then chose your camera, the glass makes the image...not the camera.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by Todd.Hanz

Id have to agree, chose the focal lengths you use most then chose your camera, the glass makes the image...not the camera.

Ha, ha... YMMV. Hearing that reminds me that IMO, it is the whole system, which includes the photographer that makes the image. True, glass is of huge importance, but I would hate to choose a wife without considering the entire system, just to produce offspring.

[ChipMcD]

I am in the lucky position of having both. The lack of a meter on the M3 doesn't cramp my style; I often use a handheld meter even with the MP.

I shoot 50mm a lot, so the M3's finder for that focal lenth and longer is clearly superior to my .72 MP. I also shoot 35mm and shorter lenses often. I have an adjustable finder for 21-28mm lengths. The need for a separate 35mm finder is a weak point of the M3. I use an old IMARECT for that. Using separate finders does not bother me though. The IMARECT even corrects for parallax.

The build quality of the two cameras seems similar, with perhaps a slight advantage to the M3. I had the M3 first and bought the used MP as insurance that I would likely have a film camera with parts available for as long as I can still shoot. Both are purring along nicely for now and both see a lot of use.

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by ChipMcD

I am in the lucky position of having both. The lack of a meter on the M3 doesn't cramp my style; I often use a handheld meter even with the MP.

I shoot 50mm a lot, so the M3's finder for that focal lenth and longer is clearly superior to my .72 MP. I also shoot 35mm and shorter lenses often. I have an adjustable finder for 21-28mm lengths. The need for a separate 35mm finder is a weak point of the M3. I use an old IMARECT for that. Using separate finders does not bother me though. The IMARECT even corrects for parallax.

The build quality of the two cameras seems similar, with perhaps a slight advantage to the M3. I had the M3 first and bought the used MP as insurance that I would likely have a film camera with parts available for as long as I can still shoot. Both are purring along nicely for now and both see a lot of use.

Wow, an MP as an insurance policy. That's gotta be nice.

[steveyork]

I don't like the 'condensed' framelines of modern Ms. Used an MP for 10 years, but now have an M5. A very practical (and ugly) camera. Me like.