richard_l
Well-known
I believe the M6 and the MP are the same size.Ponsoldt said:
R
rich815
Guest
IMO opinion, as I mention above, after handling both the M6 is not "just as much camera at half the price". Yes, I would go so far as to say since it's not half the camera that the M6 is it can certainly be considered a better buy...however, the MP (at least to my subjective opinion), is a better built and smoother operating camera. When I decided to go Leica "better buy" was not on my list of reasons to do so.
Of course we could argue this all day: both are capable of doing their job and doing it very very well. M6 people will defend why they bought and like their M6, MP people will do their best to justify why they spent more. All are valid arguements, especially to the person that makes them. Can't we all just get along?
One small but definite possible benefit to the old-fashion rewind is the more likely tendency to rewind too fast in cold, dry weather, which has been known to potentially cause static electricity problems on film. Big issue? Likely not for most but hey, it's something!
I thought the old-fashinoned rewind would be troublesome when I first got my M3 and soon after my MP, but in all honesty it takes maybe another 8-10 seconds to rewind---big deal! Plus with the handle spinning-type rewind at least half the time I'd slip and lose all the time I saved anyway in re-engaging, taking up the loose film the slipping caused, and continuing the rewind. I guess I could be more careful and go slower---but then the benefit is even less time saved....
Of course we could argue this all day: both are capable of doing their job and doing it very very well. M6 people will defend why they bought and like their M6, MP people will do their best to justify why they spent more. All are valid arguements, especially to the person that makes them. Can't we all just get along?
One small but definite possible benefit to the old-fashion rewind is the more likely tendency to rewind too fast in cold, dry weather, which has been known to potentially cause static electricity problems on film. Big issue? Likely not for most but hey, it's something!
I thought the old-fashinoned rewind would be troublesome when I first got my M3 and soon after my MP, but in all honesty it takes maybe another 8-10 seconds to rewind---big deal! Plus with the handle spinning-type rewind at least half the time I'd slip and lose all the time I saved anyway in re-engaging, taking up the loose film the slipping caused, and continuing the rewind. I guess I could be more careful and go slower---but then the benefit is even less time saved....
I agree, Rich; I don't mind the knob rewind at all. I wonder if losing control of the crank and then "re-engaging" involves unnecessary abrasion as the film rubs against itself and the cassette. I guess a motor-rewind is another way to maintain smooth tension as the film is rewound...rich815 said:
F
Frank Granovski
Guest
Then they wasted their money on the wrong model unless they got a deal.
ezio gallino
Member
ERV said:
Improving in M models has stopped around 1970-5 in coincidence with the marriage of reflex strategy, and the adoption of M5: two terrible flops.
What saved Leica was the canadian prodution of cheaper engineered M4-2 (in order to contain even a part of costs who grew astronomically), who suffered of a drastical cost cutting, and filled with lower quality components.
Only with Mp (and M7), original quality has been reapproched in order to make something similar to golden age (at high price).
Is it sufficient to compare shooting hearing between an M6 and a MP to understand the difference.....
What you say about M5 is true, but market rejected it (maybe too big, when leica had always had a feel of compactness...) and long after production stopped shop were full of unsold item. It was not what leica people (after 20 years of M3) wanted: a big marketing mistake.
A litlle like Porsche 911 and 928.... 928 was a perfect car, but not a Porsche...
Last edited:
richard_l
Well-known
Damn! My M6 is a piece of crap.ezio gallino said:
Ben Z
Veteran
ezio gallino said:
I'd have to put my trust in the opinion of DAG or Sherry K on that issue, and they both say the MP is not better made than the M6, with the exception of the rangefinder mirror and condenser lens to reduce the blanking out of the rangefinder rectangle in very specific conditions.
ezio gallino
Member
Ben Z said:
quoting Erwin Puts:
"The M3 is composed of about 860 parts, counting every screw and washer. The M7 has 1300 parts, and again every electronic component has been counted as a separate part. 350 of these parts are new and/or improved parts when comparing to the M6TTL. Two hundred of those parts are electronic and 150 are mechanical. "
"The shutter has been improved and changed substantially. In addition the top cover is now machined out of one piece of brass. The slow speed geartrain is gone, but electronics have been added. The total weight has been increased to 610 grams (10 grams more than the M6TTL) and the Leica R6.2 has a weight of 625 grams. The weight of the M7 adds to the stability when using slow speeds and is also an indication of the solidity of the engineering and the ample use of steel and glass. M3 cameras from 1954 are still functioning perfectly after more than 50 years of use. They have a working life of at least 50 years and with some care will function for the next 50 years too. The M7 would be able to function till 2102 at least. That would cover three generations of photographers. The shutter is designed for 100.000 pictures before showing any sign of wear! You can shoot 2700 rolls of film before you could detect any tear or wear in the moving parts."
"The shutter curtains are more light tight and the occasional light leaks of the older shutter curtains are now extinct. Even more important is the improved mechanical geometry of the shutter. As has been explained in the M7 review the shutter curtains have an acceleration and deceleration moment, when speed is building up and the curtain mass must be braked. Here we have an area of variable geometry and a careful redesign of the rollers and springs and braking elements has resulted in a very even movement over the travel length. Occasionally users have noted very small darker bands at the sides of the frame as a result of the shutter movement being too slow at the start and stop moments. With the new design there should be no problem.
Gears and other moving parts have been improved by a new shape and surface treatment, which will increase the mean time before failure and enhances the smoothness of the operation. The current manufacturing procedures and assembly methods allow for a slight tolerance in the selection of matching parts and some users, when comparing the M6 or M7 with a finely tuned M3 will notice a certain roughness when transporting the film or pressing the two way shutter release. With the MP there is no such thing: all operations are extremely smooth and in direct comparison to my M3 even show improvements in smoothness and noise reduction. I checked several MP models and all were alike."
This is not to say anything against M4-2,M4-P,and M6 quality , who are to be interpreted as products of that period, and it was mandatory to control costs maintaning core quality as possible (bodie cast of zinc, some use of plastic in the components, less expensive coatings...), leaving photo quality unalterated.
This is just to say that in new millenium many customers are happy to pay a litte (still!) more if they can have a "state of the art" jewel, justifying costly materials, making something near swiss luxury watches rather than a easy obsolete camera.
Digital will be next round.... we'll see.
FPjohn
Well-known
Quality
Quality
Hello:
My impression is that the MP is ment to approach the M3 in actual and perceived quality. I do not have one to comment on but can say that the order of quality and feel of the three Ms that I have is definitely M3>M6>>M4(Midland). The M6 (Wetzlar) was a big leap back towards the general feel of the M3 but it still feels light by comparison. I leave an arca lens plate on it or a hand grip-it balances better.
'purely one man's meat and this is comparing 3 individual cameras. Even the benighted M4 produces images no worse than the other two!
yours
Frank
Quality
Hello:
My impression is that the MP is ment to approach the M3 in actual and perceived quality. I do not have one to comment on but can say that the order of quality and feel of the three Ms that I have is definitely M3>M6>>M4(Midland). The M6 (Wetzlar) was a big leap back towards the general feel of the M3 but it still feels light by comparison. I leave an arca lens plate on it or a hand grip-it balances better.
'purely one man's meat and this is comparing 3 individual cameras. Even the benighted M4 produces images no worse than the other two!
yours
Frank
Last edited: