MP vs. MP3?

P

peadarceiteach

Member
Local time
10:51 AM
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
38
Decided on an MP - found out that there is a nMP3 - love the design esthetics but without knowledge concerning: is this hand built like the MP? Is the viewfinder the same as the MP? Is the overall build quality the same? I'm impressed with what I've read about the MP - and would spend the extra 500 on the MP3 if it is of similar performance.
Finally, I will be using low-light lenses mainly, in the mid-range. I don't want to make a mistake regarding the viewfinder magnification. I use glasses, but not when shooting. .72 or .84 (I believe it's .84) ? Also, as there is no Leica dealer nearby at all, and as I will need a diopter, how should I approach the issue of which magnification would be best? Buy a few and then return the ones that don't work?
Kindly share your opinions and impressions of the MP3.
Regards - PC
 
The MP3 is basically an MP but with only 35/50/90 frames, no 28/75/135 frames. Also, it has an M2 style film counter, which needs to be manually reset each time to you load a new roll if you want to keep track of how many shots are left. Furthermore, I believe the MP3 is only available with the .72 finder, so if you want the .85 finder then you need to get a normal MP.

As for finder magnification, that simply depends on which lenses you'll be using. The .85 finder is nice for long and/or fast lenses, but does not have 28mm framelines and the 35mm lines are really close to the edge. The .72 finder is the best all around finder. I shoot lots of low light stuff with my .72 MP and the results are fine with my Voigtlander 35/1.2 and Zeiss 50/1.5.
 
I disagree. I prefer the uncluttered viewfinder, although I might prefer a 28 frameline instead of -- or maybe, like the Ikon, in addition to -- the 90.
 
I'd love an MP3 for use w/ my 35 'lux.....It is a limited edition so it should be built w/ even more care than the typical MP. Gandy's site contains very positive remarks about the MP3.
 
You may prefer it, but it's still "less". Fewer framelines, less flexible, fewer lenses can be used with it, need external viewfinders for unsupported lenses, etc. As I said - less camera - more money. I guess it costs more because it is "semi-custom".

/Ira
 
If you wnat the .85 you'll have to go a la carte. I purchased 2 .85 MP a la cartes this year and really love them. rartely do I wear glasses and don't care about the 28mm frame. I do use the 75mm and fast lenses wide open so the added magnification is of value when focusing accurately wide open. I also hava a M6 .72 and M2 with .72. I love them and use the M6 regularly but much prefer the MP's. My only complaint about the current Leicas is the 35mm frame lines in the .85 and the 28mm on the .72. Only about 40% of the frame line is on the bottom to allow the LED readout to be visable for exposure readings. I find the lack of frame line to be a problem when shooting vertically and trying to square the camera with vertical lines. I spoke with Leica and they said no deal on new frame lines. As to the MP3, why? You can buy a custom MP with everything exactly as you want for less money.
 
Actually, in the US at least I've seen the MP3 body for less than the equivalent a la carte. And in the kit, you can sell the lens and Leicavit to come away with the body for less than the MSRP of a stock MP.

Ira, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "less" here. For you, 75 and 135 framelines may make a camera more flexible, but for me they make it distracting. Their absence is a feature I and others here have been willing to pay for.
 
You can have the framelines removed if you don't want them. I had DAG remove the 75 and 135 frames from my MP. It only cost $80, a much cheaper alternative to buying the MP3.
 
shenkerian said:
Actually, in the US at least I've seen the MP3 body for less than the equivalent a la carte. And in the kit, you can sell the lens and Leicavit to come away with the body for less than the MSRP of a stock MP.

Ira, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "less" here. For you, 75 and 135 framelines may make a camera more flexible, but for me they make it distracting. Their absence is a feature I and others here have been willing to pay for.
Click to expand...

I'm just thinking of this in purely economical terms. "Less" means fewer frame lines to make, install, test, etc. So you'd think it would be cheaper to produce, hence available at a lower, not higher, price. But you could also make the case that anything that changes the "standard" production process will cost more. On the other hand, it is a largely hand assembled item, so ...:rolleyes:

/Ira
 
The MP3 is a fusion of the classic M3 and M2: raised frames around the viewfinder window (M3), smooth glass in the brightline illumination window (M3), Buddha-ear strap lugs (early M3), vulcanite cover (M3 and M2), external and manual film counter (M2), and only three framelines 35-50-90 (M2). There is no other camera in the present M line-up that celebrates the legacy of the classic designs as much as the MP3. And I believe that at least some of these 'nostalgia' features of the MP3 are unavailable a la carte.

Whether this specific configuration works for you is another thing of course. I like the looks of both MP and MP3 although my 75 lens cries for a camera that includes the framelines.
 
Last edited:
i put a good deal of thought and read what i could find on the fora, and chose the MP3 over the MP, and the viewfinder 'uncluttered' with 35-50-90 is the deciding factor, and a good choice for me. :cool:

...and in my future thought...an MP
 
Last edited:
I understand the MP3 has the classically-sized 50mm frame lines. Sadly, the Vulcanite is simulated: real Vulcanite and self-timers are technologies lost to Mankind... or Solms, anyway.
 
In economic terms, the labour costs to design a unique top plate and retool machines to produce it overshadow the material cost savings from three fewer framelines. These labour costs can be divided among only 1,000 cameras (unless the top plate becomes available a la carte), so the MSRP of the MP3 was naturally much higher than the MP. In practice, however, the two models are (were?) very similar in price.

Rico, I agree with you about the self timer. I found myself missing one just the other day since I'd rather not fiddle with a cable release.
 
I really like the MP3, tastes like chicken! ....it's going to be one of those days.
 
How about this angle?

From Popflash at $6072 an MP3 kit works out better value than than a regular MP plus leicavit and 50 lux. Essentially you get the leicavit for free. and still save a few hundred bucks! You are left with a very beautiful body which while it offers nor more than a regular MP (apart from slightly higher resale) does all you need it to if you do not plan on shootig wider than 35. If shooting a 35 one might be tempted to go for the wonderful zeiss 25 which needs a finder in any case. I have an MP3 set on the way for the reasons stated. Apart from thie high initial outlay it worked out better value than a second MP body plux 50 lux.
 
I would add to the above that on my 0.72 mp the 28 finder is the outside of the finder so I will have no hesitation using my 28 on the MP3. One has to peek to see tyhe 28 frames on the 0.72 finder so using the entire finder is quite practical as a rough but good enough guide, esp for street use. I had originally ordered a 25 zeiss but was sent the 28 by mistake. I decided to keep it (with refund for difference) as 28 lines were on the margin of the finder and I realised I really would need the external fiunder for the 25.
 
I sure appreciate the input. It will help me move toward a final decision if members would share their thoughts on the various camera "coverings." I believe the MP3 is only available with a simulated Vulcanit - but an a la carte MP offers other options. What have been your experiences with the "grippy" fabric on the standard MP? Again, I just don't have a dealer nearby, and am relying on others' experience.
Many thanks.
 
The grippiness of the std sharkskin type on the std MP has come up before, but I dot recall where. Some say it is slippery when wet but I have not used mine when wet yet. I like the grip and feel that it has excellent grippiness. Looks like it will wear exremely well too. Personally I dont think the type of covering is a big deal. Sure with a la carte you can get loads of options but most cost an additional $150-200, which is the same cost as a good leather jacket in a new year sale....I think the a la carte covering costs are silly and out of all proportion. I will be leaving my MP coverig as std and the same goes for the MP3 when it arrrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom