Who prefers Leica MP over M6 and why?

aizan said:
for me,
$5460. oh dear.
Click to expand...

Yes so many options so little time. interesting how people configure so differently. Just shows how they could never make one perfect camera and what an excellent idea, other than the price 😉 a la carte was. So denigrated by the Hermes haters but really of value to those wanting their perfect Leica. thanks for sharing. BTW MP or M7 rewind ?
 
Botom of the line Leica M is the CL.

Botom of the line Leica M is the CL.

And I have two, so don't consider I'm flaming anyone here. I wish I had the time and money to try an M2, M4, M5, M6 or MP, but for now I'll stick with the CL.

And note that I leave out the M3 solely for the lack of 35 framelines.
 
Vincenzo Maielli said:
Dear Joop, in the 1977, when appeared the M4-2, the Leitz company was need to reduce the very high building cost of the previous M4 and M5 cameras. The cost cutting involved the elimination of the self timer, the use of the stainless steel to replace the chrome brass for the top and bottom cover and the redesign of the finder, in respect to the previous M4/M5: was eliminated an optical glass element, while another glass element was replaced by an acrilyc element. In practical therms, the functionality remain the same, but this finder was more prone to the flare, always in respect to the previous Leica M cameras.
The M4-2 finder type was used, also, in the M4-P, all the M6 models and the first series of the M7.
In the MP is back the chrome brass for the top and bottom cover and the finder is again with the same number of the elements as M4/M5 (all in optical glass). This new finder was mountend also in the M7 cameras, from the 2885 matriculation number.
More info in the Erwin Puts web site.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
Click to expand...


"...was eliminated an optical glass element, while another glass element was replaced by an acrilyc element. In practical therms, the functionality remain the same, but this finder was more prone to the flare, always in respect to the previous Leica M cameras."

I own the M4 and the M4-P for more than 25 years; sorry I can't seen any difference between the two M camaras in terms of 'more prone'.
The M4-P have even a little more clear distance meter...

In fact the MP is not a better camera than the M4 and the M4-P
 
The choice is really:

1 x MP vs. 2 x M6 vs. 3 x M4P

What do you prefer ? (assuming you have more than 1 lens of course).

Roland.
 
The Leica M6 is a shockingly bad camera.

The Leica MP is a shockingly bad camera.

Are either of these statements true? IMHO, no. They're both Leicae. One costs more than the other. Both take the same film and lenses. QED.
 
Each body for different use I SAY.
1. M3 is great for 50mm and 90mm because u can SEEEEE ur frame BIG.
2. M2 is great for 35mm, I Glued a 35/2 M2 edition to my M2.
3. M6 for 28 & 35 is great but i hate that small frame for 90mm, ur kiddin it doesnt even have corners!!
4. MDa for 21mm with a Finder. u dont need a RF and u cant use it anyway so its goodbye a lighter camera and less clutter and very avantgarde.
5. I bought an MP black paint 4 month ago and sold it after 2 weeks. u say im a nut? yes because it has nothin to die for. if someone is a real vintage freak after real stuff i think M6-J is the THING.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom