M2/M3 vs MP ? Overrated ?

P

proenca

Proenca
Local time
5:55 PM
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
258
Ok, I've been using Leicas for a while ( couple of years ). Love the thing.

Today I played with two cameras that I never picked up before : a Bessa and a Leica M3.

Two different beasts and was nice to compare the reputation that these two cameras have generally over the internet : bessa is bad and leica m2/3 are the best leicas every made.

Call me ignorant, but I found these two "normal" assumptions wrong.

Again I used a M6, M7 and MP. ( and butloads of pro slr's ).

Bessa was a nice surprise : build quality is good, feels solid. Layout not my cup of tea. Value for money , problem is when you fire the thing. The shutter noise is .. wow... in a not good surprising way. Still, bang for buck, very nice value for money. Fortunaly I can afford a Leica. Lets leave at it is.

Now the M2 and M3... These are regarded as the best leica ever - construction quality and beauty. Whereas the last is a purely subjective matter, I didnt find it in the quality to surpass the MP. Rather lower actually.

Don't get me wrong. Its brilliant made and you can feel the quality of the thing. But then comparing with my MP I feel the MP is nicer, a refined version of the M3. Now I can see where the MP comes from.

Ok, Im not forgetting theres 50 years apart from these cameras. But somewhat, I will take the usually superlative comments of the M2/M3 lovers with a pinch of salt. Yes, its a gem. But let me keep my MP :)

Each to each own. I will problably get one M2 or M3 one day - i would like to have a silver leica and they are a beauty. But so far Im completly commited to my MP :)
 
Pretty sure the MP is probably the better camera, except maybe for
the smaller VF magnification.

BUT: many M2/M3 owners/lovers (like me) will never buy a camera
for > US 2000. It's more a value for the $ kind of thing, I believe.

Roland.
 
Can't be value for money :) for that you would NEVER buy a Leica :)

The VF did surprised me : big WOW factor. I would put that VF in my MP anyday. But I can't manage to feel the MP is a refined M3/M2, a polished camera to perfection. Less weight, a meter inside and still the same perfection.

Still, my wallet was ticking when I hold a M3. Loved it. One day... one day... :)
 
odd why you'd think a M3 or M2 would surplant the commitment you have to use your MP. I use both my M3 and MP almost exclusively, but when I want the meter, the M3 stays in the bag.
They just have a different feel in use.
 
proenca said:
Can't be value for money :) for that you would NEVER buy a Leica :)
Click to expand...

How about that then: its easier to get by you CDFO (Chief Domestic Financial
Officer) with a 600$ camera purchase than with a :> 2000$ one :D

The two things I love about M2/M3 are: M3 viewfinder & M[23] DOF
marks. Everything else is cosmetics, prove is that for use, I mostly
pick an M6.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
thomasw_ said:
odd why you'd think a M3 or M2 would surplant the commitment you have to use your MP. I use both my M3 and MP almost exclusively, but when I want the meter, the M3 stays in the bag.
They just have a different feel in use.
Click to expand...

Oh, as said, my CDFO (Chief Domestic Financial Officer) wouldnt fire : would kill me :) Honestly, she has little impact on my gear but there was a time that I had a trolley of lens and bodies ( digital SLR days ), pro level ( Canon L primes, 1Ds,D1x, D2h, D2x, AF-S.. bla bla )

Leica, with their outrageous prices, forces me to think if I really need that - so far me and my simple MP+50 lux setup does wonders. Im considering a wide angle but will see :) My Credit Card doesnt like Leica, specially after booking 3 weeks in Asia with the miss .)
 
I understand completely. I have a four lens kit with two bodies that does everything for my shooting: M3, MP + 25,35,50x2
 
To me, they're two different kinds of cameras. I've always considered that the M3 was built against all odds, it was an engineering and design triumph, whereas the MP is a marketing work of art.

I must add that I always wished I had an MP, until I got my M3.
 
I think one of the things I like about an older M is the known fact that no computer was involved in it's manufacture ... no CNC machining and no CAD designed parts. It was all human understanding ... and learned and instinctive engineering skills.

I have never held an MP or even seen one ... to me it would have the ability without a doubt ... and I would own one in a heartbeat ... but it woud not have the soul of the M2/M3!

When I go back and read what I have written it sounds like fanatacism ... but it's true I think! :)
 
Last edited:
I'd love a black MP or even an MP-3, but I think of all that lovely glass that I'll miss out on spending all that cash on a body when my existing M2&3 does the job faultlessly. For me, the several thousand USDs would be better spent as a deposit on a Noctilux. Cheers Andrew
 
proenca said:
Two different beasts and was nice to compare the reputation that these two cameras have generally over the internet: bessa is bad...
Click to expand...

proenca said:
Them... on the internet
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

While, in my opinion, the Leica is far superior to any Bessa, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere, calling their reputation (or any other aspect of them) "bad."
 
Keith said:
I think one of the things I like about an older M is the known fact that no computer was involved in it's manufacture ... no CNC machining and no CAD designed parts. It was all human understanding ... and learned and instinctive engineering skills.

I have never held an MP or even seen one ... to me it would have the ability without a doubt ... and I would own one in a heartbeat ... but it woud not have the soul of the M2/M3!

When I go back and read what I have written it sounds like fanatacism ... but it's true I think! :)
Click to expand...
There is something about the manufacturing of an M3/M2 but ... today's cost of labor would result in a much higher price tag for the MP ;). I see it this way, the MP is based on the same engineering skills as the older M3/M2 but the production process is adapted to up to date standards. (and the MP has a meter on-board)
 
maddoc said:
There is something about the manufacturing of an M3/M2 but ... today's cost of labor would result in a much higher price tag for the MP ;). I see it this way, the MP is based on the same engineering skills as the older M3/M2 but the production process is adapted to up to date standards. (and the MP has a meter on-board)
Click to expand...

I agree totally ... but there is a special feeling in using a camera that was hand built and assembled half a century ago and still functions perfectly. Hopefully an MP would still have this sort of longevity! :)
 
Funny that so many people say Leica's superiority is in the lenses....Frankly, I think it's in the bodies.

I had many third party lenses for my M bodies, and by and large they gave much better performance per dollar spent than my pricey Leica lenses.

The bodies are another story. I have yet to try a Zeiss Ikon body, but the other bodies out there - including the ridiculously overpriced Nikon RF's - simply don't match the quality of the classic M's. My Bessa L and R were simply crap. Not a big surprise considering they cost about the same as a Leica lens cap, but still... The newer Cosina products are better, but I'd rather put the $500 they cost towards the best RF body ever made rather than bitch about how loud and cheap the Bessas are.

All IMHO, of course. :D
 
If the MP cost within the ballpark of what a clean M2 or M3 goes for, then it would be a fair fight. But since MP money buys three clean, classic M's, there's no contest.
 
Usually at about this point 'Magus' would enter the thread and tell us all what we needed to know ... but that was the old days! :angel: :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom