Has ANYONE had their mind changed by anything in this poll?
The arguments for and against each camera come down to four groups:
1 The actual major differences: AE + battery dependency
2 Personal preference, often based on the above
3 Other, minor, historical differences, mostly or all inapplicable to current cameras (e.g. flare, eyepiece sealing)
4 Hysteria, hearsay and sheer nonsense
A few further thoughts:
I've been shooting transparencies in Leicas for well over 30 years and have yet to have shutters that are hopelessly inaccurate.
It's dead easy to compensate for a consistently slow shutter, regardless of which film you use. I know: on my old Pentax SV, the shutter is up to a stop out on some speeds. If the shutter is inconsistent, there's something badly wrong with it.
Does anyone seriously believe that Leica maintains (for example) two separate sets of wind-on mechanisms, 'cheap'n'nasty' for M7 and 'the best' for MP? Components are continuously upgraded or (sometimes) downgraded and wherever there is a possibility of using the same components, it makes sense to do so.
I've lost track of how many thousand pictures I've had published over the last 30 years or so, and the majority have been taken with Leicas: M2, M3, M4-P, MP, plus a few with M6ttl and even my old IIIa. The IIIa ceased to be reliable some time around its 60th birthday, and one of the M2s jammed once when it was in its 30s but was soon fixed. I'd rather have an M7 than none of the above, but I'd rather have an MP than an M7: personal preference. To call an MP a 'toy' next to the more 'practical' M7 is... well... odd, and personally biased, to say the least.
Cheers,
Roger