What's different about the MP?

Brian Sweeney said:
With the MP, Leica has renounced the cost cutting measures intruduced with the M4-2 and returned to the "spare-no-expense" to get quality of the M4 and M2.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but I sure wish they hadn't screwed up on the viewfinder.
 
>Maybe so, but I sure wish they hadn't screwed up on the viewfinder

I have only read about the MP viewfinder, but I was under the impression that it was as good as the M2 and M4. I have also read that the elimination of a condensor lens in the M4-2 led to an increase in RF patch flare (EDIT: Erwin Puts states that it was a redesign of the VF/RF optics) . I handled an M6 for a few days and it flared where my M2 did not. It is possible to make the M2 flare, but you have to try pretty hard to do it.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/RFbasics/rfissues.html
 
Last edited:
Sure, Richard, it's how you shoot, what you shoot, when you shoot... It's worth it to me but not to you and I am sure there are others who will agree with either of us.

If I'm in a hurry and have the choice I'll pre-focus, and with tab-focus lenses like my old 35/1.4 there's always the option of 'feel focus', but wide-open at night the only real choice for me is a low-flare rangefinder: at folk nights, parties, performances, etc., the MP is simply the best Leica EVER, bar none. My last M3 (also black paint) was smoother and sweeter but no 35mm frame gives the MP the edge for me.

I also like the self-zeroing counter -- you have to pull out the load spool on an M3 as far as I remember.

Cheers,

Roger
 
The viewfinder of my MP (0.72 mag) is vastly superior to my M3. Much more "saturation" as well as contrast. The rangefinder rectangle is also more pronounced which makes focusing much easier. I like the MP viewfinder so much I'm investigating how much it costs to install a 0.85 MP viewfinder into an M3.

Jim Bielecki
 
Brian Sweeney said:
.....I have only read about the MP viewfinder, but I was under the impression that it was as good as the M2 and M4.....
Click to expand...
There wa an issue about dust getting in the finder because it was not sealed properly. The problem has since been corrected, but apparently a lot of people had to return their cameras under warranty to have them fixed.
 
There was a similar dust issue with the M7 finder that began when they started fitting the MP finders to the M7. I read that Leica also fixed it on the M7 but when I don't know.

 
When I picked up my M3 back in 1995, the rangefinder part of the viewfinder was so covered with dust it was unuseable. I scale focused for a few months before I finally sent the camera out for a CLA. This was probably an anomoly, but other M series cameras can have dust problems too.

BTW, I have an early production MP with not a trace of dust in the viewfinder (though I, too, have read the stories about dusty MP viewfinders).

Jim Bielecki
 
Most early production cameras have issues that need to be corrected. The Nikon F2 underwent a lot of small internal changes until the 73'xxxxx block. My two earliest F2's are 7101xxx, from the pre-production run. These early ones had some real reliability issues; a friend at work bought them "hot of the press" and had two lock up on their first field experiment. Went back to Nikon F's for all of his field work after that. After corrections, the Nikon F2 is often hailed as one of the best mechanical SLR's of all time. The early F5 had shutter problems; my favorite camera shop advised me to wait a year before getting one when they were first introduced.
 
Nikon is notorious for having issues in early production runs of new products. That's just the way Nikon does things. The smart thing to do is to hold off buying new Nikon designs until the bugs are worked out.

However, it is unfortunate for there to be an issue with a product (the MP) which is designed to showcase the legendary high quality of the early Ms. With the MP one is supposedly getting quality rather than innovative design. The viewfinder seal issue is not really a big deal, but it is a disappointment.
 
I worked in a camera shop in the 70's while working my way through college. Most newly introduced cameras had issues. The Olympus OM-1MD had a 15% failure rate. Canon AE-1, Nikon FM, Nikon FE, not as bad but we saw them returned. By that time the F2A and F2AS were out (78' block); I never saw one of those come back as defective out of the box.

It is always best to buy from a store that has an exchange (for NIB) period of 14~30 days or so before going over to repair work. I suspect that Epson's RD-1 1-year replacement policy issues rebuilt cameras, otherwise we would be seeing deep-discount rebuilt RD-1's all over.
 
My impressions, from owning an M6 Classic; M6ttl; and a now an MP, is that the build quality of the MP exceeds that of the M6, which is saying alot, as the M6 is of very high quality. If the M6 is solidly built, like a rock, then the MP is like a tank. Just my impression. Also, before getting rid of the M6, I determined that the shutter is a bit quieter. No real practical differences, except for what's mentioned above. If I had to do it again, I may have just kept the M6.
 
I love the phrase "my impressions" from sgy1962 above.

A quiet shutter is paramount for me because of a long project I'm working on. I tried a number of Leicas in stores when I bought my first one and to be honest, you cannot make a generalization to a model range on the basis of a sample of one, even with Leica's legendary small sample-to-sample variation.

I ended up with an M6TTL and I was lucky in that the sample I got (from Rich Pinto) has a quiet shutter. I bought a new M7 a couple of weeks ago and if anything that is even quieter although not by much. I have tried other M7s that were noisier. I'm sure that is true of most of the other attributes of these cameras, even with the Leica small production variations.

It just amazes me that forums are full of anecdotal threads that are taken as seriously as statistically significant sample results. I understand the value of personal experience with this or that product but the amount of generalization that goes on from empirical underpinnings that are essentially sand is pretty funny. So long as people understand that "this is better than that", "this one works wrong but that one works right" kinds of posts are personal opinion colored by personal experience we will all stay sane.

The best example I can think of is a well-known (ex) poster on photo.net who is a dentist. He was (is) an absolute expert on the technicalities of all things Leica with an extremely clever and bitingly sarcastic tongue. I'm sure denizens of PN know who I'm talking about. If you believed this guy and did exactly the same kind of photography as he did, you did OK. But if you had different needs for your equipment you could end up in big trouble if you followed his advice without thinking. Unfortunately he did not understand that his impressions didn't apply to the universe of Leica users out there, and he crashed out of the forum in a flame war that took out several other casualties as well. Another reason to really like this forum because those things don't seem to happen here. :)

 
Alright, I'll admit that I've had MP envy for a couple of months. I love my M6, but I am hesitant to spend the thousand bucks to upgrade to the MP. Do you all think that an MP is worth a thousand dollar upgrade from an M6TTL?
 
Well, the current "international" price in the USA is $2,350.00 NEW give or take a few bucks. What do you think? Is your M6 falling apart? If so, do it. Or, sell it and upgrade. It's a nice camera but it takes pictures just like an M6; the finder is better but the rest works about the same.
 
eloquentlight said:
Alright, I'll admit that I've had MP envy for a couple of months. I love my M6, but I am hesitant to spend the thousand bucks to upgrade to the MP. Do you all think that an MP is worth a thousand dollar upgrade from an M6TTL?
Click to expand...
I don't think the MP would be exactly an upgrade from the M6TTL; I would consider it more of an upgrade from the M6.

I personally would rather "downgrade" from my M6 to a minty M4 than upgrade to a new MP.
 
M 3 viewfinder

M 3 viewfinder

Mackinaw said:
The viewfinder of my MP (0.72 mag) is vastly superior to my M3. Much more "saturation" as well as contrast. The rangefinder rectangle is also more pronounced which makes focusing much easier. I like the MP viewfinder so much I'm investigating how much it costs to install a 0.85 MP viewfinder into an M3.

Jim Bielecki
Click to expand...

Having a total of 3 M3 I would recommend a cleaning of the viewfinder. Early this year CRR Luton/GB did a total service on a late M3 (#1064...) including chemical cleaning of the viewfinder, and this vf is much better than the other units.
Low contrast in the vf in my case is usually related to fingerprints and dirty glasses on my nose
;) So in one Leica shop they hand me a cleaning tissue almost every time I come in, these days I guess I have enough microfibre to put one into every suit!

I prefer my M3s so much that I bought a Summicron 35 for M3, just to be able to use a 35 on M3. Now if I could only fit brightlines 75 mm into M3 I could throw out the MP.

Of course I need 3 M3:
- Noctilux (set up together)
- 90/2
- Normal (50 or 35)

Consider having the M3 vf rather cleaned than exchanged!

Wolfram
 
If your M6 viewfinder flares a bit, just give it some shade by holding your right hand horizontal, Red-Indian style. I might add that I'm lucky, my M6TTL is the most silent Leica I ever had, maybe because it was a factory demonstrator, sold as checked and adjusted by Leica.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom