thomasw_
Well-known
Hi, I have a MP 0.72 and had a MP 0.58.
1. Easily done, not a problem.
2. I used a Megaperl's 1.35x on my MP 0.58 when I shot a 50 or > focal length. It was just lame; I didn't like the dimming effect on the VF at all.
3. Shooting slide film is not a problem as long as you understand some basic metering. I still love shooting Kodachrome 64 with my MP. That being said, I do shoot 95+% B+W film, and if I were to shoot mostly slide film, then I would seriously consider a M7 or ZI.
Hope that helps,
Thomas
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
I don't hate electronics, but I'd rather not get stuck with a dead camera because the electronics or the batt crapped out. I got an MP because the shutter speed dial turns in the same direction as the dial on my M6, which gives me one less thing to worry about (that's good ergonomics). I also like the MP's rewind knob; it hasn't yet come undone, whereas the angled rewind knob on my M6 has done that, and always at an inopportune time.
BigSteveG
Well-known
I have an MP 0.85 and use the 1.25 mag w/ 50 and 75 lux as well as 90 Hex. Works great. My 1st M was an M6 TTL. Was nice, but I never really took to it. The MP is wonderful and has no issues in terms of the OP's concerns, If you buy a .72 mag, for God's sake get rid of some of those framelines. Still dreaming of an MP3 for my 35mm lenses.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
You got me on this one.
To say the M7 is "better" than the MP has no bearing in reality and cannot be shown in fact outside of one's subjective babblings.
In fact, the M7 costs less to produce than the MP - about 10% less.
Subjectly rationalize that one for me...
x-ray
Veteran
I don't want to be rude but it really sounds like you had your mind made up on the M7 before you asked the question. Why not buy the M7 and be done with it. I can see you will never be happy with anything other than an M7.Your thoughts on shutters, metering and ergonomics seem to be a little misguided. Have you ever handled or used either camera? Any M for that matter? Are you aware that the M7 has had electronic problems over it's life? I'm not trying to sway you either way but your information isn't particularly correct and sounds like it came from someone that's not very experienced.
krishilife
Member
I'm trying to find my final camera, and stop looking for something else. A few years ago, I thought that it will be my Nikon F6. When I got it, I was sure it will stay with me for very long time. After a year, I got Contax G2, and finaly sold F6. I can't understand why I was sure that I will keep Nikon F6 (the last emperor of film) when I bought it. Now I sold G2, and want MP. At least not too many left to try.
I'm curious how many MP owners moved from M7 to MP, and why?
I'm curious how many MP owners moved from M7 to MP, and why?
Last edited:
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
When I was shooting film (until about a year ago) I had both. My primary shooter was the M7.
Once I got into the M8, I sold the M7 and kept the MP. I pondered this for some time before actually pulling the trigger, but I still often wish I had done the opposite.
Why? It goes back to that subjective babble.... Plus, in my case, the M7 was a “one-of-a-kind” PB a-la-carte (MP-7 configuration) and the other is a LHSA MP Hammertone.
x-ray
Veteran
Again Im not trying to insult you so please don't take this the wrong way. The F6 is about the finest camera you can buy, Leica included. I don't know why you sold the F6 but I would be curious.
I know a fellow in my area that I think is just like you. He's fliped between about every system thare is and done it two and three times. He's constantly looking for the magic bullet that he never finds. I know for a fact because he told me that he's had multiple Hasselblad systems, Nikon systems and number of others at different times. He's never satisfied because none of the equipment ever performs to his expectations. The one good thing I can say is he's sold me some darn great equipment at dirt cheap prices. One example was his Rllei SL66. 80 planar and back in the original box. It had only 2 rolls through it and he sold it for one third of what he paid for it a week before. This was his second SL66 in a couple of years and inbetween he had a Hasselblad, Contax RTS system, Nikon system and a G2 ContX. I thirty plus years he's nsever found his system but spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I would guess you'll sell or trade the M Leica, whichever you get, in a year. It's lens selection is limited as far as focal length and the accuracy of the VF is nowhere as accurate as the F6. It's not even in the ball park and the use of add on VF's is a pain particularly considering the distortion and lack of parallax correction. You have essentially no macro / micro ability and the M s not particularly fast to use compared to the F6. Lenses are fine but they're really no better overall compared to Nikon or any other of the big makers. The F6 syncs at much higher speeds, TTL flash, multiple meter paterns, multiple exposure modes, ultra fast auto focus and motor. It's weather sealed and built like a real tank to take the toughest professional punishment that can be handed out. I've used Leica M's 40 years and Nikons almost as long and the Nikons simply out classes all other film cameras hands down. In my professional opinion I would take a F6 over any other 35 film camera when the money is on the table and I had to return from hell with a picture story. No question, the camera and lenses are that good.
You're going to be disappointed in any M is my guess.
dreamsandart
Well-known
I don't know if this will help but... If you are looking for that 'perfect' manual M-series camera (latest) you can't go wrong with an MP. It has it all and does what it is suppose to do. I like using the built-in meter, its convenient and works, I like setting the exposure totally myself and knowing what the camera is doing, and I just don't need a battery dependent camera.
If you want the AE then the M7 is the better camera, its as simple as that.
And Hay, if you don't like what you got you can always sell it
If you want the AE then the M7 is the better camera, its as simple as that.
And Hay, if you don't like what you got you can always sell it
maddoc
... likes film again.
Very well summed up and I think you have some very good points here, especially about durability and versatility of the Nikon F system (and the F6 as the best 135mm film camera ever). For a professional photographer who has to rely on his tools, there is no alternative (except maybe Canon but I don't know about their film SLR cameras)
From my - amateurish - experience (having used Nikon FM and F3HP for 20 years), manual focus is a lot easier with a Leica (and any other rangefinder camera) and more precise. In fact, I have stopped using my Nikons and switched to Leica because I couldn't precisely focus anymore due to degrading eye-sight. Focusing a 50/1.4 Ais / F3HP at f/1.4 and close distance (~2 - 3m) is impossible for me, 50/1.0 @ f/1.0 with either the M4-P or M6TTL 0.85x at the same distance no problem.
So my point is, as an amateur who takes photos as a hobby, has no interest in macro, sports or wildlife photography but searches for highest quality and portability, a Leica (ZI, Nikon, Voigtlander) rangefinder camera with two or three well selected lenses is a good alternative to the Nikon F6.
kshapero
South Florida Man
nice thread. I guess I will eventually pony up for an MP.
x-ray
Veteran
Maddoc I understand not everyone want to shoot a 400 2.8 and do micro work but it's there if you want it or need it where as the Leica system is extremely limited particularly in todays world of every accessory and lens under the sun. As to focus it's a personal eye thing about ease of use. I find my Zeiss Icon (modern) to be te easiest of all RF's that I've used and find AF on modern Canon or Nikon slr's to be more accurate and faster than my ZI or M's. Even manual focus is improved in modern slr's with the right screen. I use a spit image with micro prism collar in my Canons and find it extremely easy to manually focus even under very dim light. It's all about our eyes and each persons eyes are different. It's not that I have no experience with leicas but I find them very slow compared to modern SLr's in almost every respect. The reason I still use M's is because of the comfort factor of so many years of use and the quieter operation, smaller size and a small number of fast lenses. I've found over time that I can do basically the same work with modern slr's vs RF's within the limits of the RF system.
I just hate to see folks throwing money into a system expecting miracles and a magic bullet to make them shoot like a pro. Shutter and meter accuracy are the least of the problems in making a professional quality image. Realistically I've found that a good quality system, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss and etc all will do the same thing and do it about as well as the next system. The biggest difference is picky little details that are personal preferences not a whopping big difference in lenses (character) or functionality of a body.
MP's and M7's are equally great cameras but there are a tone of other equally great cameras. My guess is the M system will not meet his expectations once he has a chance to use one.
I just hate to see folks throwing money into a system expecting miracles and a magic bullet to make them shoot like a pro. Shutter and meter accuracy are the least of the problems in making a professional quality image. Realistically I've found that a good quality system, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss and etc all will do the same thing and do it about as well as the next system. The biggest difference is picky little details that are personal preferences not a whopping big difference in lenses (character) or functionality of a body.
MP's and M7's are equally great cameras but there are a tone of other equally great cameras. My guess is the M system will not meet his expectations once he has a chance to use one.
krishilife
Member
"The F6 is about the finest camera you can buy, Leica included. I don't know why you sold the F6 but I would be curious."
It started about 7 years ago...
I was leaving to California for a short trip, so I wanted as good camera as I could afford. I went to a local camera shop. 7 years ago, when eBay wasn't so devastating most of the local dealers, local shop was full of almost every camera I could imagine (used and new).
After half an hour I picked Contax N1 + Zeiss Zoom 24-85 F3.5-4.5. I didn't buy new, because I couldn't afford. But at least I made a decision what I want. Finally I bought this system new from eBay for 2/3 of the local dealer price. Being in California I realized that the system is excellent, and slides are beautiful, but... it is darn heavy to carry for the whole day. Zeiss zoom was 82mm diameter. Next year I sold it, and was happy that I don't have to carry it no more. I remember that the guy in a local store suggested me Contax G2 for the same price as for Contax N1, but the total set of G2, including 3 lenses was a way more expensive than N1. I looked at the G2, and said "This little camera which looks like 20 years old junk cost more than N1, a real machine?", and I made a fun of him. Now I know he was right.
So I was thinking about something lighter, at least lighter lenses. Nikon came to my head. I enrolled to Nikon forum, read most of the things I was interested, and decided, hmm... F4 + 3 primes will be enough for me. I knew F4 is heavy as a brick, but I found it for the price impossible to buy before. I was happy for a few months, and... damn to heavy again. OK, now I'm smarter, comtemplation, and... bingo Nikon F3HP (I wear glasses). Wow, now I have not too big, light, durable camera - I'm happy now.
OK, I'm good, and reading Nikon forum... now everybody recommends F6 as a marvel, state of the art of technology. At top of this, it is compatible with old, manual primes, and I can use Matrix. Hah, looking for used... not available on eBay. Hmmm everybody must like it and keep it. Waiting more... Bingo, authorized dealer sells it for 2/3 of the retail price, just reconditioned, but with 1 year warranty. That's OK for me, Got it... I'm in heaven now!
I have the camera which everybody wants to have, I paid less than retail, and it's in like new condition. OK, I'm done.
The time is ticking, and I'm shooting pictures. Wow, matrix really works, but... why my pictures are not as artistic as those from Leica, Contax G2, Zeiss lenses. Definitely they are sharp, but lacks something. Because I mainly use 28...90mm focal lenses I find that Nikon lenses are sharp, but bokeh is poor. AF-D 85mm F1.4 is excellent, but that's the only really good lens within the focal length I use the most.
It's time for Contax G2. Took it to Colorado. Just in a few words, it gave me the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen. After a year I noticed that it's fine camera for blind people, but it's just point & shoot, no pleasure of taking the pictures. It is excellent for landscape, but for portraits, and low light it's too limited. No F1.4 lenses and dead system.
So here I am......
It started about 7 years ago...
I was leaving to California for a short trip, so I wanted as good camera as I could afford. I went to a local camera shop. 7 years ago, when eBay wasn't so devastating most of the local dealers, local shop was full of almost every camera I could imagine (used and new).
After half an hour I picked Contax N1 + Zeiss Zoom 24-85 F3.5-4.5. I didn't buy new, because I couldn't afford. But at least I made a decision what I want. Finally I bought this system new from eBay for 2/3 of the local dealer price. Being in California I realized that the system is excellent, and slides are beautiful, but... it is darn heavy to carry for the whole day. Zeiss zoom was 82mm diameter. Next year I sold it, and was happy that I don't have to carry it no more. I remember that the guy in a local store suggested me Contax G2 for the same price as for Contax N1, but the total set of G2, including 3 lenses was a way more expensive than N1. I looked at the G2, and said "This little camera which looks like 20 years old junk cost more than N1, a real machine?", and I made a fun of him. Now I know he was right.
So I was thinking about something lighter, at least lighter lenses. Nikon came to my head. I enrolled to Nikon forum, read most of the things I was interested, and decided, hmm... F4 + 3 primes will be enough for me. I knew F4 is heavy as a brick, but I found it for the price impossible to buy before. I was happy for a few months, and... damn to heavy again. OK, now I'm smarter, comtemplation, and... bingo Nikon F3HP (I wear glasses). Wow, now I have not too big, light, durable camera - I'm happy now.
OK, I'm good, and reading Nikon forum... now everybody recommends F6 as a marvel, state of the art of technology. At top of this, it is compatible with old, manual primes, and I can use Matrix. Hah, looking for used... not available on eBay. Hmmm everybody must like it and keep it. Waiting more... Bingo, authorized dealer sells it for 2/3 of the retail price, just reconditioned, but with 1 year warranty. That's OK for me, Got it... I'm in heaven now!
I have the camera which everybody wants to have, I paid less than retail, and it's in like new condition. OK, I'm done.
The time is ticking, and I'm shooting pictures. Wow, matrix really works, but... why my pictures are not as artistic as those from Leica, Contax G2, Zeiss lenses. Definitely they are sharp, but lacks something. Because I mainly use 28...90mm focal lenses I find that Nikon lenses are sharp, but bokeh is poor. AF-D 85mm F1.4 is excellent, but that's the only really good lens within the focal length I use the most.
It's time for Contax G2. Took it to Colorado. Just in a few words, it gave me the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen. After a year I noticed that it's fine camera for blind people, but it's just point & shoot, no pleasure of taking the pictures. It is excellent for landscape, but for portraits, and low light it's too limited. No F1.4 lenses and dead system.
So here I am......
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Again, totally agree with you. Any modern camera system of any company is capable to produce "stunning photos" (I don't like this term but don't know for a better description) if the guy behind the camera has a) talent and b) some basic skills. For sure the miracles don't come automatically by handing over the credit card to the store clerk, when picking up a new camera(-sytem), be it Leica, Nikon, Canon or whatever. Also, it is usually the amateurs - like me - who switch around equipment (bodies and lenses) and blame the camera for the boring / technically poor photos.
But .... If somebody has the spare money to spent for cameras, why not trying a Leica for some time ? At least a rangefinder camera with all its limitations (but good portability and quietness) is a different experience compared with a SLR and perhaps the limitations force to concentrate more onto the final goal, taking a good photo.
pfoto
Well-known
I did. I'm not convinced the electronics in an M7 are reliable.
x-ray
Veteran
Kris you explained things well. Your first problem is reading forums. Your second is not sticking with a camera system and really learning it. Seeking the magic bullet.
IMO amateurs are simply people that doen't get paid for thir photographs. I've seen plenty of amteurs that put some pros to sham in terms of quality and creativity.
I would disagree totally with Kris that the only good lens in the fl range (Nikon) is the 85 1.4. The 1.8 af is a killer lens. Bokeh??? Disagree there too but it's ones opinion vs anothers.
I think you said the G2 images were more creative than the N1 images. It's ot a function f the camera but is a function of you and what's in your head. It seems you're more comfortable with a lighter smaller camera and I understand that but a camera is not creative. It's the person behind the camera that's creative. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's the camera.
I don't know your work and don't know your skill level so don't be angry. No insult intended. Experience has shown me that a person shooting for seven years is generally but not generally a very skilled shooter. I've seen very few shoters over the years that can shoot with enough skill and consistancy to know whether a lens. film. developer, camera or whatever is really good or not. Generally great shots at that point in ones experience is more a matter of luck. Ive seen people rave about cheap optics and cameras because they happened to hit a shot right for once. The old expression "even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while" apples here.
I understand the thing about weight and find it relative to ones experience. In the "old days" not so long ago when us commercial whores packed heavy lighting and film cameras up to 8x10 into the field for commercial shoots it wasn't uncommon to carry 300 to 1000 pounds of lighting and camera gear. Now I carry about a hundred to two hundred pounds for the average shoot and my Canon 1DsII kit with 9 lenses and extras and find it light weight. Funny how things change. My majestic tripod with double legs that I used for my 8x10 weighs in at about 35 pounds and was the light weight alternative when I traded my Linhof heavy dity pro tripod (~55 lbs) for an 11x14 camera for the studio. It's all relative.
Certainly go for the leica if you have the $ but it's not magic, creative or anything else other than a tool that performs to your command.
Good luck and make some great pix with whatever you choose. Enjoy photography for making images not chasing a magic bullet. You'll never be happy if that's what you're doing.
IMO amateurs are simply people that doen't get paid for thir photographs. I've seen plenty of amteurs that put some pros to sham in terms of quality and creativity.
I would disagree totally with Kris that the only good lens in the fl range (Nikon) is the 85 1.4. The 1.8 af is a killer lens. Bokeh??? Disagree there too but it's ones opinion vs anothers.
I think you said the G2 images were more creative than the N1 images. It's ot a function f the camera but is a function of you and what's in your head. It seems you're more comfortable with a lighter smaller camera and I understand that but a camera is not creative. It's the person behind the camera that's creative. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's the camera.
I don't know your work and don't know your skill level so don't be angry. No insult intended. Experience has shown me that a person shooting for seven years is generally but not generally a very skilled shooter. I've seen very few shoters over the years that can shoot with enough skill and consistancy to know whether a lens. film. developer, camera or whatever is really good or not. Generally great shots at that point in ones experience is more a matter of luck. Ive seen people rave about cheap optics and cameras because they happened to hit a shot right for once. The old expression "even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while" apples here.
I understand the thing about weight and find it relative to ones experience. In the "old days" not so long ago when us commercial whores packed heavy lighting and film cameras up to 8x10 into the field for commercial shoots it wasn't uncommon to carry 300 to 1000 pounds of lighting and camera gear. Now I carry about a hundred to two hundred pounds for the average shoot and my Canon 1DsII kit with 9 lenses and extras and find it light weight. Funny how things change. My majestic tripod with double legs that I used for my 8x10 weighs in at about 35 pounds and was the light weight alternative when I traded my Linhof heavy dity pro tripod (~55 lbs) for an 11x14 camera for the studio. It's all relative.
Certainly go for the leica if you have the $ but it's not magic, creative or anything else other than a tool that performs to your command.
Good luck and make some great pix with whatever you choose. Enjoy photography for making images not chasing a magic bullet. You'll never be happy if that's what you're doing.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
"1) Can you operate shutter wheel with one finger? Do you need to use 2 fingers? Also, how smooth is the wheel? ......"
...Zen of photography. Once you work with Leica M cameras all of this becomes second nature. Leica cameras are hands on -- no automation like your G2 or Nikon F6. Most Leica photographers pre-select the speed and work the aperture when the camera meets the eye.
"3) How accurate is it with slides? I know that M7 is better in this area, but what's your hit rate with MP?"
Secret: Until recent times, National Geographic magazine photographers over-whelmingly shot slides with Leica manual cameras...with the small wheels.
My suggestion to you is to buy an M6 and see if you like the rangefinder style of photography before you shell out for an MP or M7.
Good luck.
...Zen of photography. Once you work with Leica M cameras all of this becomes second nature. Leica cameras are hands on -- no automation like your G2 or Nikon F6. Most Leica photographers pre-select the speed and work the aperture when the camera meets the eye.
"3) How accurate is it with slides? I know that M7 is better in this area, but what's your hit rate with MP?"
Secret: Until recent times, National Geographic magazine photographers over-whelmingly shot slides with Leica manual cameras...with the small wheels.
My suggestion to you is to buy an M6 and see if you like the rangefinder style of photography before you shell out for an MP or M7.
Good luck.
Nugard
Elvis lives!..
I think, you stuck with the "BEST camera"... I use OM-1n as my main camera for three years, and I have nothing bad to say about it... Recently I have bought MP, because I need a second camera(for B&W film)... And none of OMs that I bought didn't operate as my first OM, that was a gift from my father(he bought it decades ago in USA)...
Maybe OM-1n is a good variant to try for you...
BTW I think you already have solved what camera to buy. Buy it... There is no big difference in the price of M7 and MP... So it wouldn't be a problem to change another camera
Maybe OM-1n is a good variant to try for you...
BTW I think you already have solved what camera to buy. Buy it... There is no big difference in the price of M7 and MP... So it wouldn't be a problem to change another camera