What's different about the MP?

x-ray · 07-14-2005

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/phot...y.php?cat=5045

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

Justin Viiret · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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/phot...y.php?cat=5045

jdos2 · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

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.

peter_n · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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 · 07-14-2005

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

richard_l · 07-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

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 · 07-14-2005

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

back alley · 07-14-2005

do 3 p's count?

Brian Sweeney · 07-15-2005

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 · 07-15-2005

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 · 07-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard_l

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 · 07-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by phototone

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 · 07-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

.....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 · 07-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

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 · 07-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by backalley photo

do 3 p's count?

You are qualified to be an honorary member.

Brian Sweeney · 07-15-2005

>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/te.../rfissues.html

back alley · 07-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard_l

You are qualified to be an honorary member.

and i do feel honoured!
many thanks.

joe

Roger Hicks · 07-15-2005

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