Different MP finishes

[vishalvora]

Hello Erik,

I like to have two bodies but don't really want to get another M6 whether it be TTL or classic. I don't want an M7 as I perfer mechanical cameras therefore am left with the MP.

Vishal.

 

[erikvanstraten]

Vishal,
Yes, I think you're right, I am very curious what camera pleases you more, M6TTL or MP. Did you notice that the advance of the film on the MP is smoother than on the M6TTL? And the all-metal transport lever gives you a sensation that you're in direct contact with the camera's inner mechanism. Moreover, the transportation-levers with a hinged tip (on the M4,4-2,4-P,6 and so on) do damage the camera top plate, right underneath it, have you noticed that? It's a small point maybe, but it is irritating to have a camera that damages itself by completely normal use. The lever of the MP does not touch the top plate at all. I wish you many great shots with your new MP!

Regards,

Erik.

 

[vishalvora]

Hello Erik,

To be honest I have not noticed the differences you mention, the MP is fine camera, I am sure my exmaple will be covered with marks within the first month of use, I like to make it my own and use it - not abuse it!

I find that on the M6TTL, there is a small dimple to prevent the transport level doing what you mention - it works well.

I prefer the metal level - reminds me of using an M3 - which is what the MP essentially is, an M3 with a meter.

Many thanks,

Vishal.

 

[erikvanstraten]

Hi Vishal,

The dimple on the M6TTL is there...but not for preventing any damage. (On the MP the same dimple is there). In fact it's a hole, it can be opened. Right underneath it there's an eccentric by wich a repairman can adjust the higher shutterspeeds: 250, 500 and 1000. The hole is handy, because otherwise the whole camera should be opened when there's an adjustment neccesary. The higher speeds need more often adjustment than the slower speeds.

I do not agree with you that the MP is an M3 with a meter...far from that. The viewfinder of the MP, how pretty and contrasty it is, is in fact not a match against the M3...when using a 50mm lens. The frames in the M3-finder are much more precise in indicating what you will get on your negative. The MP's 50mm frame can be seen only as an indication, in fact you'll get much, much more on your negative than the frame in your finder indicates. At infinity it's worse than at close-up, but not good either. Ofcourse you can crop when enlarging the picture, but then you'll lose quality... The image of the M3's finder is also much more quiet and the frames do not vary in changing light-situations like the MP's. Also, a finely tuned M3 is still a lot smoother in operation than a MP. But when you work with only a 35mm lens the MP is the better choice. I use a black MP with a 35mm and a black M3 with a 50mm most of the time.

Regards,

Erik.

 

[Mgreenhill]

I'm fascinated by all the nuances of finish, viewfinder clarity, mechanical smoothness, brass or zinc etc., that so many of you are concerned with. I must be particularly insensitive. Nearly every Leica I've handled has a smoothness of action, a handiness, a 'rightness' for taking photos. I know that every one can give a lifetime of use.
Paint or chrome finish is immaterial in this aspect.
Another pennyworth,
Michael

 

[mholdef]

I have an M7 in black but just bought the MP in chrome.

Have to admit like the M7 in black and MP in chrome - the chrome gives it that "M3 feel".

I have the M7 in 0.72 and MP in 0.58. May seem odd but I bought the MP in 0.58 so I could use the 28mm Summicron better (which I haven't yet bought but intend to sometime in next year). Much nicer when using the 35mm lens although a bit harder with the 50mm but I have a 1.25x magnifier which solves that issue very easily.

Camera handles and works like a dream and can't wait to develop my 3 rolls of Tri-X!

Mark