Who has a Leica MP? Is it really awesome?

BillBlackwell said:
This is simply not correct by any measure. The MP is put together in an assembly-line by unskilled employees. The M4 was put together by highly skilled artisans.

The MP has the same 'right or replace' finder found in the M4-2 (and in every M camera since). The oft talked about (flair resistant) condenser was removed half-way into the M4-2 run and added back starting with the MP. The MP 'build quality' is indeed inferior to that of an M6 - If you want to argue contrarily, no rational case can be made that the MP ‘build quality’ is better by any comparison. The MP eyepiece is substantially inferior to any preceding it.

"I knew the Leica M4; the Leica M4 was a friend of mine. The MP is no M4." Lloyd Benson (well, sort of)
Click to expand...

The rangefinder of the MP have the same optical contructions of the Leica M3/M2/M4/M5, this is a fact. See Erwin Puts articles to confirm.
The rangefinder of the M4-2 lack an optical element, in respect to M4/M5 and previous Leica M rangefinders, while another optical glass element was replaced by an acrylic element. This construction was made to pull down the manifacturing cost. This type of rangefinder was mantained, also, in the M4-P, all versions of the M6 and the first version of the M7.
In the Leica MP, and in the Leica M7 from 2885 matriculation numbers, the optical rangefinder was realized like in the past.
I own Leica M2, M3, M4, M5, MP and M7 with new rangefinder type and I confirm that situation.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
 
Last edited:
Vincenzo Maielli said:
The rangefinder of the MP have the same optical contructions of the Leica M3/M2/M4/M5, this is a fact. See Erwin Puts articles to confirm. The rangefinder of the M4-2 lack an optical element, in respect to M4/M5 and previous Leica M rangefinders, while another optical glass element was replaced by an acrylic element. This construction was made to pull down the manifacturing cost. This type of rangefinder was mantained, also, in the M4-P, all versions of the M6 and the first version of the M7. In the Leica MP, and in the Leica M7 from 2885 matriculation numbers, the optical rangefinder was realized like in the past. I own Leica M2, M3, M4, M5, MP and M7 with new rangefinder type and I confirm that situation.
Ciao. Vincenzo
Click to expand...

In order to avoid a hair splitting exercise (which might simply degrade into an elaborate 'pissing contest'), I will simply agree. On the whole, the M4 and MP rangefinders are indeed optically the same.
 
matt335 said:
Yes, it's bloody awesome. Once you forget the hype and wank about the branding and snobbery some associate with it and it becomes just an extension of your eye then it becomes an even more awesome camera. What I love the best about it is just this. Forget its a brand name and just take photos. That aside though it's built to last and endure, but it has the finesse as you'd expect. Perfection in mechanical engineering. I have only used mine every day for three years so far and it's totally reliable. It never misses a beat. Ask me again in 20 years. It's black, its unassuming and easily concealed and non-threatening. Yes this is a cliche but it becomes you and you forget it's a camera.
Click to expand...

not to be too smart-alecky, but that sounds like hype.
 
I had an MP. Yes, it does have less tendency for the rangefinder patch to white out, but that can be retrofitted to an M6.

In the interest of cheaper CNC milling Leica did away with the threaded eyepiece in favor of one that attaches with 3 screws, however the top plate is rounded at the end and left a gap at 9 o'clock, which Leica covered up with a new rubber eyepiece protector. Unfortunately it let dust get inside, and Leica's fix was with silicone caulk. I did mine myself.

Then there's the matter of the rewind button. Fans say it's more robust, and it may be, but in practical use it was clumsy and slow for me, so I had to pop for one of Leica's add-on cranks.

Ultimately I sold the MP and with the proceeds bought two used M6 Classics and a Voitlander 28/1.9.

At this point, those M6's are gone too, and I'm back to where I started, a pair of well-worn but DAG-overhauled M4's. They give me the combination of features I appreciate most. And I don't miss the built-in meter at all.

Finally, when I bought my MP I paid $2K (demo) when new ones were $2350. At the prices they want for a new one now, I wouldn't even entertain the notion of buying one.
 
M3's rangefinder is the most complex and expensive Leica ever designed, subsequent revisions were all made with cost-cutting principal to policy.

Had a play with an MP and M2 yesterday they are both truly wonderful cameras despite the number of years that separate their production.

In the golden years a Leica technician went through a very stringent 3.5 years apprenticeship, after that they were graded in skill according to time served with Leica, not sure how true that is today.
 
Last edited:
Mister E said:
It's like an expensive, poorly made imitation of the M2.
Click to expand...

This is like saying the latest Canon EOS model is a cheap knock off of the T90...

I haven't found this to be the case, having previously owned an M2 and being the proud owner of a current MP. The MP is as smooth, and has about the same level of external finishing as the M2 (in my opinion). The built in meter is the icing on the cake. Many M2's were heavily used over the years, and their current internal workings are quite varied. Not so with the MP's (in general). As for cost, this is subjective... I haven't been disappointed in the least with the MP.

Cheers,
Jim
 
BillBlackwell said:
In order to avoid a hair splitting exercise (which might simply degrade into an elaborate 'pissing contest'), I will simply agree. On the whole, the M4 and MP rangefinders are indeed optically the same.
Click to expand...

Pissing contest? Are you all so vulgar in Orange County? I hope not, frankly speaking. Moreover, to split the air should be able, dear friend.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
 
I do own or have owned an M2, M3 DS and SS, M4, M5, M6, M7 , and an MP
Theses are my thoughts. YMMV-

Love the M2 and the M3.
The M4 has the reputation (Best built yada yada), but it feels no better.
The M5 is an intriguing beast, with the best VF info. of the series.
The idea of battery dependant shutter on the M7 made me nervous.( Truth is, the chances of me finding myself in a remote part of the World shooting a once-in-a-lifetime photograph, with a suddenly dead M7 meter are, well...remote. I am more likely to win the Lottery !)

I bought and sold 2 MPs. Never quite liked them as much as I heard about. At least one well known repairperson (oft-mentioned here) agrees that they are NOT the "best built M bodies ever", and had advised me against wasting my money on them.

I love my M6s as they are the most compromise of all of these.
 
just thought I'd toss out another option thats out there.

I'd rather spend the money on a BP m6 Millennium. (black paint, fancy engraving, big dial, m6 iso dial, beautiful minimalist design) then upgrade the finder and mask out the 135mm & 75mm framelines. I'd still have money left over for film instead of an MP.
 
Last edited:
There's more than that but I don't remember what it is as it's seven years since I was making this choice. So to bump this I'm saying that I think the M6TTL either had less printed circuitry or a more flexible circuit board. Whatever the difference was the M6TTL meter system was considered a bit more reliable and accurate than the M6 classic. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom