Tuolumne
Veteran
It was a special edition. I'd consider selling mine if someone really wanted it. Mint.
/T
Why doesn't Leica just remake the M2?
- Thread starter abenner
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 81
- Views 5K
It was a special edition. I'd consider selling mine if someone really wanted it. Mint.
/T
bobkonos
Well-known
They did make an M2 and included an internal light meter: it is the MP. Look at the front: it is like the M2, rather than the M3 as the original MP. A favorite kit of mine are my chrome finish MP and M2 together.
marke
Well-known
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
While I would prefer to buy an MP over an M2, I'd likely get an M2 used as even with a CLA it would likely cost me less than half what a decent used MP could sell for.
But, were money no object, I'd get an MP in a heartbeat.
Riccis
Well-known
BP or Chrome? How much?
notturtle
Well-known
That camera IS the MP in standard garb (only with a meter). The cost is a product of the labour and low volume. A meterless MP would cost little to no less I suspect.
You can always buy a used M2 for far less than a new MP. You could even buy one with a blacked out finder and get it re-silvered for less than half the cost of a new MP.....
aizan
Veteran
as long as we're daydreaming, leica should make these two new film m bodies:
1. start with a leica mp and make the following changes:
- no meter, so no battery cap on the front
- classic top plate engraving like the one on a la carte mps and the anthracite mp (there are two other variations found elsewhere)
- no shutter speed adjustment hole behind the shutter speed dial
- recessed front windows
- the base of the frameline preview lever should be chrome in the chrome version, not black as it is in everything else, save the hermes mp
- bring back the flush film type reminder dial, but engraved with the new typeface
- no engravings on the back of the top plate
- black crinkle paint in the film loading area
- a la carte vulkanit covering, no holes to display screw heads like on the mp3
2. start with camera #1 and make the following changes:
- replace the cloth shutter with a mechanical bladed shutter
- with the extra space, put the battery compartment inside the body on the bottom, covered by the base plate.
- wire the new film type reminder dial so it communicates iso to the body
and that's it. the last camera has a meter, but no ae. that would just be the most awesome stuff ever.
1. start with a leica mp and make the following changes:
- no meter, so no battery cap on the front
- classic top plate engraving like the one on a la carte mps and the anthracite mp (there are two other variations found elsewhere)
- no shutter speed adjustment hole behind the shutter speed dial
- recessed front windows
- the base of the frameline preview lever should be chrome in the chrome version, not black as it is in everything else, save the hermes mp
- bring back the flush film type reminder dial, but engraved with the new typeface
- no engravings on the back of the top plate
- black crinkle paint in the film loading area
- a la carte vulkanit covering, no holes to display screw heads like on the mp3
2. start with camera #1 and make the following changes:
- replace the cloth shutter with a mechanical bladed shutter
- with the extra space, put the battery compartment inside the body on the bottom, covered by the base plate.
- wire the new film type reminder dial so it communicates iso to the body
and that's it. the last camera has a meter, but no ae. that would just be the most awesome stuff ever.
notturtle
Well-known
I would definitely want a meter and so do most people I suspect. A meterless camera without good reason would be about as successful as the MP classic was as a collectible i.e. an absolute lemon.
notturtle
Well-known
I think the MP is about perfect as it is really! My only gripe about the chrome finish is that it is more slippery than BP. The BP has sooooo much more grip on the painted surfaces than the teflon like satin of the chrome. I far prefer handling the BP! I initially thought BP too shiny (I did not want chrome for the first camera) and wished that they had made it in black chrome, but now I realised BP is actually the more practical finish. Its smoothness has the same effect as rubbing a finger against a clean window pane - it resists sliding.
The vulcanite on my M2 has far more grip than the sharkskin tho. I bought black beautiy leather from cameraleather to recover my MPs with in the hope it will be much grippier, but still traditional.
The vulcanite on my M2 has far more grip than the sharkskin tho. I bought black beautiy leather from cameraleather to recover my MPs with in the hope it will be much grippier, but still traditional.
teo
Well-known
I'd say that manual labor today is too expensive to build it exactly like it was...
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Like most (all?) of you, I own plenty of cameras - Leica screw mount, Contax, Nikon digital, Rollei, Hasselblad, weird ones, and Leica M's. When not shooting professionally, I switch back and forth among the cameras, primarily to see if I 'see' any different/better from one camera to the other. But, I always seem to come back to my M2 - it seems to allow the ability to shoot quickly, frame easily, and catch/create the moment that often results in a great shot - much more so than any other camera I have.
If I only could keep one camera, my M2 would be it.
If I only could keep one camera, my M2 would be it.
HenningW
Well-known
So how many F6's does Nikon make per month?
They should be selling a lot, since the F6 is cheaper than the Leicas.
A revived M2 is likely to cost more than an MP: the newer stuff that the MP has on it is very likely to be cheaper to produce than the 'old' stuff that was left behind with the M2. At the very best a revived M2, built with some of the cost saving measures incorporated into the new cameras might be a couple of hundred dollars cheaper than an MP, and I believe I'm being optimistic.
Probably more Bessa's are being sold right now than Leicas, but Zeiss Ikon's? I very much doubt it. I've seen a total of about 3 ZI's out in the wild, compared with well over a hundred MP's and M7's. These numbers do not include my friends and aquaintances, since that would skew the results even more in favour of the Leica's. In any case, in spite of the ZI's being without a doubt better cameras than the Bessa's, the market is price sensitive enough to produce this ratio. After all, in the ZI's price bracket are a lot of very good used Leica M's of whatever type you want. Nobody is buying a ZI. Why would anyone buy a new M2 at a much higher price? Certainly not I.
Henning
Al Kaplan
Veteran
No meter! At some point they'll give you grief. About the only situation I use one is in rain or heavy overcast. Sunlight is no problem and artificial light indoors is no problem.
yoyo22
Well-known
Chris101
summicronia
Wouldn't that make it louder? How about putting that 'slr sound chip' in it like a lot of P&S cameras have.
antiquark
Derek Ross
I suspect an M2 remake would cost around $10,000, considering that the Nikon rangefinder remakes cost $5000 (for the S3 in 2000) and $7000 (for the SP in 2005).
And probably Nikon didn't make much money on those, otherwise they'd still be in production.
SP
http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
S3
http://www.cameraquest.com/NRFS3 2000.htm
And probably Nikon didn't make much money on those, otherwise they'd still be in production.
SP
http://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
S3
http://www.cameraquest.com/NRFS3 2000.htm
aizan
Veteran
m8 users aren't exaggerating when they say the shutter is as quiet, sans motorwind.
marke
Well-known
I recently recovered my M3, which wasn't too hard as the old vulcanite was quite brittle. But I'm curious to know how hard it was for you to remove the new sharkskin, as I'd really like to get something more practical on there myself.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
What a good thread--many thoughtful replies to the original question!
I agree that to match the original M2, a new one should have the condenser lens. I think it ought to have the smooth film advance of the original. I guess that would call for either using the brass gears like the original had; or else at least the smoother ones of the current MP.
I bought my M2 in 1960 for $249.00. If the cost of living is, say, 10x now, then it could cost $2490 and be the same value. The cost of living may have increased more than that. There's a way to check it online.
Question is, would Leica want to risk cutting into MP and M7 sales, like the CL cut into M5 sales?
I agree that to match the original M2, a new one should have the condenser lens. I think it ought to have the smooth film advance of the original. I guess that would call for either using the brass gears like the original had; or else at least the smoother ones of the current MP.
I bought my M2 in 1960 for $249.00. If the cost of living is, say, 10x now, then it could cost $2490 and be the same value. The cost of living may have increased more than that. There's a way to check it online.
Question is, would Leica want to risk cutting into MP and M7 sales, like the CL cut into M5 sales?
abenner
undecided
I was wrong to propose rebuilding the M2. I think people are right to suggest they couldn't produce an M2, as it was, much (if at all) cheaper than an MP.
What I was trying to say was that it seems Leica film camera sales are dying and Leica does not intend to do anything to stave off the inevitable end of the M film line, and I wonder if offering a more affordable camera would be a worthy endeavor.
Anyway I should have phrased the question as:
"Why doesn't Leica consider building a robust but simpler and cheaper M film camera which could fill the gap between the reasonably affordable Bessas and Ikons and the uber-expensive MP and M7?"
It seems there's a lot of room in that price gap. Produce a quality camera that's still an M and I think a few people would buy it.
Yes, I know, there's a wonderful used market with plenty of great cameras at reasonable prices and that's not going to change. Whatever they made would sell new for probably more than a used-mint MP or M7 anyway, but my point is it seems they gotta do something, right? Do people not agree with me that Leica is unlikely to produce film cameras much longer if they're selling at a rate of 100-150/month?
What's the over/under on years Leica continues to produce film cameras? If I were taking bets, I'd put the number at 3.5. Maybe I'll start a poll...
What I was trying to say was that it seems Leica film camera sales are dying and Leica does not intend to do anything to stave off the inevitable end of the M film line, and I wonder if offering a more affordable camera would be a worthy endeavor.
Anyway I should have phrased the question as:
"Why doesn't Leica consider building a robust but simpler and cheaper M film camera which could fill the gap between the reasonably affordable Bessas and Ikons and the uber-expensive MP and M7?"
It seems there's a lot of room in that price gap. Produce a quality camera that's still an M and I think a few people would buy it.
Yes, I know, there's a wonderful used market with plenty of great cameras at reasonable prices and that's not going to change. Whatever they made would sell new for probably more than a used-mint MP or M7 anyway, but my point is it seems they gotta do something, right? Do people not agree with me that Leica is unlikely to produce film cameras much longer if they're selling at a rate of 100-150/month?
What's the over/under on years Leica continues to produce film cameras? If I were taking bets, I'd put the number at 3.5. Maybe I'll start a poll...
