MP vs CLA'd M6 with MP viewfinder
- Thread starter f.hayek
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 5K
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The differences between a Leica M6 (classic) and an MP:
1. The MP has a brass top; the M6 is zinc alloy;
2. The MP has the “Leica” script engraving; the M6 has no engraving (early M6 camera tops from Wetzlar are engraved “ERNST LEITZ WETZLAR GMBH”);
3. The MP has the classic M3/2 RW mechanism with vintage style knobs; the M6 has the M4 style with the slanted crank with M4/5/7 style knobs;
4. The MP has the RF condenser lens (taken out in the M4-2 run); the M6 does not.
5. Different body coverings (neither is extraordinary);
6. The black MP cameras are painted (and the paint is ‘designed’ to rub off); the black M6 is anodized black chrome;
7. The MP has more modern meter circuitry and the meter may be a stop more sensitive in low lighting conditions (replacement M6 circuit boards can no longer be had);
8. The MP generally has a smoother film advance mechanism compared to an M6. This is a result of some fine tuning;
9. The MP is fitted with a separate eyepiece with a plastic cover installed. Every M camera prior has the eyepiece molded into the body with a diopter that screwed in. The new eyepiece was not originally sealed and allowed dust into the finder over time; Leica now seals the eyepiece at the factory, but it is still an inferior design compared to any that preceded it.
10. The hot shoes are different – neither is better or worse than the other;
11. The MP has coated RF windows – the M6 does not.
The shutter sound differences noted by some are partly due to the differences in top plate metals. It should be also noted than shutter sounds may vary from camera to camera (two M6s, for example, might sound different due to differences in wear, lubricants, and micro variations within tolerances). I have seen this often.
I have owned and used both. In spite of the differences, functionally they are the same camera with the same build tolerances; both have the same shutter mechanism and the same RF (with the condenser lens added in the MP – a ~$200 upgrade through DAG – more if done through Leica).
1. The MP has a brass top; the M6 is zinc alloy;
2. The MP has the “Leica” script engraving; the M6 has no engraving (early M6 camera tops from Wetzlar are engraved “ERNST LEITZ WETZLAR GMBH”);
3. The MP has the classic M3/2 RW mechanism with vintage style knobs; the M6 has the M4 style with the slanted crank with M4/5/7 style knobs;
4. The MP has the RF condenser lens (taken out in the M4-2 run); the M6 does not.
5. Different body coverings (neither is extraordinary);
6. The black MP cameras are painted (and the paint is ‘designed’ to rub off); the black M6 is anodized black chrome;
7. The MP has more modern meter circuitry and the meter may be a stop more sensitive in low lighting conditions (replacement M6 circuit boards can no longer be had);
8. The MP generally has a smoother film advance mechanism compared to an M6. This is a result of some fine tuning;
9. The MP is fitted with a separate eyepiece with a plastic cover installed. Every M camera prior has the eyepiece molded into the body with a diopter that screwed in. The new eyepiece was not originally sealed and allowed dust into the finder over time; Leica now seals the eyepiece at the factory, but it is still an inferior design compared to any that preceded it.
10. The hot shoes are different – neither is better or worse than the other;
11. The MP has coated RF windows – the M6 does not.
The shutter sound differences noted by some are partly due to the differences in top plate metals. It should be also noted than shutter sounds may vary from camera to camera (two M6s, for example, might sound different due to differences in wear, lubricants, and micro variations within tolerances). I have seen this often.
I have owned and used both. In spite of the differences, functionally they are the same camera with the same build tolerances; both have the same shutter mechanism and the same RF (with the condenser lens added in the MP – a ~$200 upgrade through DAG – more if done through Leica).
This kind of seems like a situation where you can’t go wrong … either way you’ll have a great camera.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Depends on how much shooting you do. MP has better innards. But you do have a nice M6.
f.hayek
Well-known
This is true. Something unique about the 0.85 finder.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I mean do disrespect, but based on what? The "innards" of an MP are identical to those of an M6 classic. The only change is a condenser lens in the rangefinder mechanism and the meter/hot shoe circuitry.
f.hayek
Well-known
Is it really?
I ask out of ignorance, having never handled an MP myself. It does make sense that they wouldn't muck around with a design that served Leica well for 20 years but is the MP essentially an M6-redux with a newer meter circuit board and anti-glare finder optics with brass top & bottom plates?
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
That is precisely correct.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Someone wrote, on another RFF thread, that Sherry Krauter said that the M6 is made better than the MP. But there were no details given. Does anyone know any more about this?
f.hayek
Well-known
Better or easier to repair?
in any event, what is now purportedly to succeed the MP, s mere days away. Question remains, what’s to improve? Perhaps the M10/11 rangefinder with a super slim Leicavit motorized frame advance….
CLAdictic
Established
I had an M-6 TTL .85 for several years, bought new. I later picked up a new M7 .58. It didn't take long before I found myself using the M7 as I prefer shooting with a wide angle lens more than a 90. Sold the M6-TTL with no regrets. It really amounts to the individual's requirements. Likewise my choice is the M2 rather than the M3 for the same reason.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
