A little game: MP or M3?

richardhkirkando said:
I don't think I could ever justify paying $3000+ for a 35mm camera. I'd go with an M2 . . .
Click to expand...

That's what I did. Looked lustfully at a BP MP but couldn't justify the cash. Found a very nice M2-S (with M4,6,7,P loading) and it's great. Learned to live without the built in meter. And it was only $1200, having just had a CLA from Sherry.

Best,
-Tim
 
M3, the finder is perfect (for me at least) learn sunny16 and use the lightmeter iphone app. Keep the cash for your birth year summicron :)
 
If I had the choice between a modern MP and a M3.....:rolleyes:

I would go for the M3, no doubt! :):):)

Better built quality than the modern MP, no plastic parts and better finder for me. And this old thing just looks cool with the framed windows. Backdoor looks also much nicer than the modern MP.

I don't need a built in meter, I prefer to use my separated one. Don't know why, I just like it more. Just for verifying as I am guesstimating most of the time.


Oh, I would go for the old, original MP.....but....you know! :rolleyes: Dreaming!

And maybe I would go for the modern MP-3. I have seen it once in natural and I have to say, it's really cute. Wanted to buy it. Went to the bank to get the money, and when I came back, the seller told me, that he decided to keep it. Sad story. :eek: But I learned the lesson to have the money with me. Just in case.

:)
 
I had a pair of MPs for 10 years, loved them, used then all over, from Russia to the Galapagos, but recently got rid of both, because I started to view them as a bit fraudulent, and overpriced, and they don't do anything an M6 or M5 can't do (at half the price). Over the last year or two, I sold both MPs and an M7 (actually made money, even though I used one of the MPs for a decade) and got an M5, and then another M5. Great, functional camera. So yes, my vote is to go with the older cameras. There's something special about them.

I've never been a big fan of the M6. A capable camera, but compared to the older cameras they feel just "so, so." Nothing special.
 
thomasw_ said:
Given the dichotomy the OP sets, I'd go with the M3 over the MP .85x -- due to the fact that the red dot/arrows in the VF drive me to compositional confuzzlement while shooting in low light situations or they slow me down by how often they advise me to adjust (usually in useless small increments) my aperture or shutter speed. This is assuming I am wanting a body for shooting a 50/75/90 etc...

To my mind the best all-round M (which, for me, has to be without an in-camera meter) would be a M4-P. Its 28/35/50/75 lines do any framing I might want and its a simple no nonsense M that never distracts me while I am composing. I just had my M4-p buffed, too; so now it looks as good as it functions for me!

Here's a recent snap:

P1020104.JPG
Click to expand...

That looks really good. How hard removing those Leica m4-p engravings
is ?
 
shooting a 40 on an m3 is great, the actual viewfinder window shows a 40mm frame (not 35) so it's even better than using 35mm.

that being said i also use a 35mm on my m3 without an external finder or goggles and it's just fine.

i made this same decision about a month or two ago when i bought my m3. i had enough money for any leica barring the m9, and eventually settled on the m3 because the viewfinder was the best and the operation of the camera was the quietest and smoothest. in addition the heavyness of the body was a great attractive feature for me - i feel the m3's heavy body lets me take pictures at lower shutter speeds than many other lightweight plastic cameras do.

one thing that was sort of important for me was the rangefinder patch's visibility. the m3's patch doesn't disappear - ever. i don't know about the mp but i do know that sometimes if you look through the viewfinders of other m's or other rangefinders the patch will disappear - you have to look at the finder straight on. the m3's patch just stays there no matter what. that was something i noticed quickly.
 
I traded my M3 for an MP, for me, it's probably not worth it. I was concerned about light leaks etc. in the M3, so a fully CLA'd M3 without any issues would be very nice. The MP is a lovely camera of course, but I preferred the frame lines of the M3. I'd maybe trade for an M3 and an Ikon, the Ikon for the wider frames like 28mm, and the M3 for 50mm and 90mm.

MP is great, but it did not grab me the way the M3 did.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Id have to agree, chose the focal lengths you use most then chose your camera, the glass makes the image...not the camera.
 
Todd.Hanz said:
Id have to agree, chose the focal lengths you use most then chose your camera, the glass makes the image...not the camera.
Click to expand...


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.:p
 
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.
 
ChipMcD said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, an MP as an insurance policy. That's gotta be nice.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom