If I enjoy the Leica M3 should I just "sell everything" and get a MP?

[Certain Exposures]

I exposed a roll of slide film recently and, judging by the results, my instincts are sufficient. I still value a meter although I do not depend on one anymore. Hot shoe meters are always a compromise in my experience.

So, do you think I am a fool for not selling an arm, a leg, a kidney, and possibly a my first-born to get a Leica MP if I enjoy using the Leica M3 despite some of the frustrating quirks of a rangefinder (I do have a few gripes)? I feel that the relative age and a few design features of the MP could make it worth spending a little more for one used over the M6.

The M7 requires batteries for most of its shutter speeds and the automatic function would be a dangerous siren song for me. I have removed it from consideration.

I suspect that I would not lose much money if I sold a MP in acceptable user condition. That is related to why I made this post here (link).

 

[Paul Howell]

If it were me I would consider a Zeiss ZM, likely not the same build quality, but TTL centered weighted meter, hinged back, takes all M mount lens. Not sure what the price radiance would be between a MP and ZM.

 

[RLangham]

My advice isn't really worth anything since I've never even physically seen an M series in person, but if you like the M3, it seems to me that you like the M3, and also apparently have it already? Seems like the MP would be a lot of money for an incremental upgrade.

It's like, I have a Leica IIIb. Would the moving framelines of a IIIg be totally radical? Yes. But would that be worth three times what I paid for the IIIb?

 

[mshchem]

I have an MP, I still use a incident meter for slide film. The meter patch varies with different lenses, can be tricky. I sure wouldn't sell everything unless you want to get a MP. Mine is black paint, I love it. Can't tell any difference from a M3.

 

[4season]

I suspect that I would not lose much money if I sold a MP in acceptable user condition.

Only true if you start with a secondhand camera at a good price, and even then it can be iffy: Sometimes you get lucky and people are paying silly prices for Leica M, and other times, you may get nothing but browsers and bargain-hunters. If you paid $800-1100 for a nice M3, you've done well.

Slide film has always been tricky to expose properly, and in the old days, people used to talk about "bracketing like crazy", and brag about how quickly they burned through a 20-roll brick of film. Matrix metering was a godsend in this regard, but it's never been available in a Leica M camera.

I think the time to treat yourself to a $5K camera body that you don't really need is when you can tally up your net worth and realize you've become $100K wealthier doing absolutely nothing.

 

[gbroadbridge]

So, do you think I am a fool for not selling an arm, a leg, a kidney, and possibly a my first-born to get a Leica MP if I enjoy using the Leica M3 despite some of the frustrating quirks of a rangefinder (I do have a few gripes)? I feel that the relative age and a few design features of the MP could make it worth spending a little more for one used over the M6.

Ask yourself exactly how a new camera is going to improve your photography.

I'd spend the money going somewhere photographically interesting.

 

[mshchem]

Only true if you start with a secondhand camera at a good price, and even then it can be iffy: Sometimes you get lucky and people are paying silly prices for Leica M, and other times, you may get nothing but browsers and bargain-hunters. If you paid $800-1100 for a nice M3, you've done well.

Slide film has always been tricky to expose properly, and in the old days, people used to talk about "bracketing like crazy", and brag about how quickly they burned through a 20-roll brick of film. Matrix metering was a godsend in this regard, but it's never been available in a Leica M camera.

I think the time to treat yourself to a $5K camera body that you don't really need is when you can tally up your net worth and realize you've become $100K wealthier doing absolutely nothing.

+1

Matrix metering . And if you really want to nail it, auto bracket 0, +1/2, -1/2. Of course this was before $50 Fujichrome!

When it's (recently been) possible to find a nice F5 for under $400. Crazy to spend a lot of money unless you prize something for it's craftsmanship. I don’t do fancy wristwatches, but I get the idea.

 

[armadsen]

I own an MP, and it’s my main camera. I also love and shoot slide film. I get great results from it. But when I want to be really sure, I still use my handheld incident meter with it. I also sometimes go for my Minolta A-9 for its matrix metering when shooting slide film.

So, were I in your position I’d consider either a nice incident meter, or a cheapish late film SLR with matrix metering.

 

[IpseLux]

I exposed a roll of slide film recently and, judging by the results, my instincts are sufficient. I still value a meter although I do not depend on one anymore. Hot shoe meters are always a compromise in my experience.

So, do you think I am a fool for not selling an arm, a leg, a kidney, and possibly a my first-born to get a Leica MP if I enjoy using the Leica M3 despite some of the frustrating quirks of a rangefinder (I do have a few gripes)? I feel that the relative age and a few design features of the MP could make it worth spending a little more for one used over the M6.

The M7 requires batteries for most of its shutter speeds and the automatic function would be a dangerous siren song for me. I have removed it from consideration.

I suspect that I would not lose much money if I sold a MP in acceptable user condition. That is related to why I made this post here (link).

Treat yourself, don’t cheat yourself. Life is short enough as is.
And money, in itself, brings little true and lasting joy, or a longer life.
If you want it, and can get it, I’d suggest you do.
Photographs will outlive us all. And who knows, you might very well create, or capture the great photo of this century.
Personally, I’m not a Leica guy. But I wouldn’t do without my mechanical, and battery independent FM2n.
Don’t need a meter for flash, just a guide number.
Outdoor photography is simple enough with the sunny 16 rule.
And there’s always bracketing.
I say go for it!
Best of luck.
Enjoy.

 

[sonora]

IMO unless you really need the features that are different between the M3 and MP (e.g., the 0,72x finder with 6 framelines, internal light meter, focusing to 0,75m, black paint, etc.), the M3 will probably be just as good of a camera as the MP, if not better. The pictures certainly won't show a difference.

I'm certainly biased toward the M3, as it's my favourite camera, but I wouldn't sell all my worldly possessions just for an M. Or if I were... maybe I'd go try one out before committing that large a sum.

 

[igzabeher]

Just to troll, get an M5 instead. More seriously,. echoing the above two posters, if you want it and can afford it, get it. But don't expect that it's going to be a drastic improvement (at least in terms of the pictures captured) over what you already have.

 

[Frank53]

Slide film has always been tricky to expose properly, and in the old days, people used to talk about "bracketing like crazy", and brag about how quickly they burned through a 20-roll brick of film. Matrix metering was a godsend in this regard, but it's never been available in a Leica M

Sure it’s a bit tricky, but isn’t bracketing a prove of one’s incompetence?
I remember traveling in the seventies with my OM-1 and 50 rolls of Ektachrome and coming back with almost 36 well exposed slides on each roll, just using the built in lightmeter.

 

[Rayt]

If I shot slide film then I would definitely consider a metered camera. How much is it now for a roll? I don’t need a built in meter for b/w and carry a Sekonic 308 always but a built in reflective meter comes in handy. Anyway as a former Leice user for 25 years I have never lost money selling any Leica after years of use so try one for a while. Mark up on new Leica is pretty high so buy used. I am down to one M2 and that’s all I need.

What subject matter does the OP shoot? If I didn’t shoot street photography I wouldn’t have a rangefinder at all but that’s another topic.

 

[chuckroast]

I exposed a roll of slide film recently and, judging by the results, my instincts are sufficient. I still value a meter although I do not depend on one anymore. Hot shoe meters are always a compromise in my experience.

So, do you think I am a fool for not selling an arm, a leg, a kidney, and possibly a my first-born to get a Leica MP if I enjoy using the Leica M3 despite some of the frustrating quirks of a rangefinder (I do have a few gripes)? I feel that the relative age and a few design features of the MP could make it worth spending a little more for one used over the M6.

The M7 requires batteries for most of its shutter speeds and the automatic function would be a dangerous siren song for me. I have removed it from consideration.

I suspect that I would not lose much money if I sold a MP in acceptable user condition. That is related to why I made this post here (link).

The quirks of the rangefinder will be with you irrespective of the M body you use.

I would take a well maintained/CLAed legacy M (M2, M3, M4, M5) in good condition over any of the newer bodies from the M4-2 forward through the MP/M-A. The legacy bodies were pretty much entirely hand fit with brass parts.

The later models used some plastics, zinc, and other materials compromises. Are they "bad" cameras? No. Leica never made a bad camera. They just are not up to the standards of the legacy machines.

You asked for advice. If it were me, I'd make sure that M3 and any lenses that need it go to DAG for proper servicing for a lifetime of happy use.

My Leicas range in age from 1953 to 1974. All have been serviced and work pretty much flawlessly. I could about buy a new M-A/MP/M6 if I sold them all, but I would consider that a step down.

Keep your M3.

 

[chuckroast]

Sure it’s a bit tricky, but isn’t bracketing a prove of one’s incompetence?
I remember traveling in the seventies with my OM-1 and 50 rolls of Ektachrome and coming back with almost 36 well exposed slides on each roll, just using the built in lightmeter.

It's a kind of photographic vanity to avoid bracketing. I am well versed in zone system, have all the requisite meters, and a very repeatable film workflow. I still bracket. Why? Because the cost of film is trivial by comparison to the costs of getting somewhere, staying there, and shooting for great outcomes. I'd rather burn some extra frames (or sheets) knowing that I will have something when I get back from a multi-thousand dollar trip.

 

[pbromaghin]

This sounds like a bad case of GAS looking for reinforcement.

 

[IpseLux]

This sounds like a bad case of GAS looking for reinforcement.

GAS is contagious! I get it bad myself.

 

[GregY]

It's a kind of photographic vanity to avoid bracketing. I am well versed in zone system, have all the requisite meters, and a very repeatable film workflow. I still bracket. Why? Because the cost of film is trivial by comparison to the costs of getting somewhere, staying there, and shooting for great outcomes. I'd rather burn some extra frames (or sheets) knowing that I will have something when I get back from a multi-thousand dollar trip.

I agree chuck.
On the subject of the well-loved M3 vs a new MP..... That's a mighty expensive light meter.
As a looong time M user, (After M2/4, I had a string of M6 and an MP). The Leica thing i hate is the cluttered viewfinder.
I can live with all else...(except the M3 and its 50mm-centric view).
M3? MP ? In the big picture,.....there must be better things to spend money on ??? (like travel?).

 

[RLangham]

Sure it’s a bit tricky, but isn’t bracketing a prove of one’s incompetence?
I remember traveling in the seventies with my OM-1 and 50 rolls of Ektachrome and coming back with almost 36 well exposed slides on each roll, just using the built in lightmeter.

Incompetence? No I wouldn’t say so, I’d say if anything bracketing when it’s important to have a usable version of an image is a mark of a professional. Sometimes development comes out a little weak or sometimes your battery in your meter is dying. Heck, sometimes your instincts with regards to the metering pattern are wrong. And if you’re a professional you don’t want to be too prideful to leave room for that.

Amateurs like me can be as sure as we want to be that the exposure is right and move on to the next thing, and it doesn’t really matter, whereas the film itself is at a premium. Whereas for a professional film is the cost of doing business. If you’re doing it for love of the art, which is what “amateur” means, “lover,” then sure, vanity can enter into it. Not when you’ve got a job to do.

And heck nowadays if you’re doing a hybrid process, bracket a whole lot and then stitch your images and you’re running HDR on film! That’s pretty cool.

 

[4season]

Sure it’s a bit tricky, but isn’t bracketing a prove of one’s incompetence?

[Shrug] It was probably a small number of individuals loudly proclaiming that particular wisdom, supposedly based on what some well-known photojournalist was doing. Of course, said journalist wouldn't have been paying for his own film, and sifting through the mountain of images would be the responsibility of the editor!

But 36/36 well-exposed color slide images consistently? Nope, I don't think I ever achieved that: Even with matrix metering, I found the margin between "acceptable" and "spot-on" very narrow, and I don't miss the days of chasing the softest light in hopes of keeping contrast within ~4 stops! To this day, I dislike featureless white skies unless of course, they really looked like that.

Today, I have no slide projector, hence, there's no point in my shooting slide film, particularly at today's prices. Medium format slides sure could look great though.

 

[Frank53]

It's a kind of photographic vanity to avoid bracketing. I am well versed in zone system, have all the requisite meters, and a very repeatable film workflow. I still bracket. Why? Because the cost of film is trivial by comparison to the costs of getting somewhere, staying there, and shooting for great outcomes. I'd rather burn some extra frames (or sheets) knowing that I will have something when I get back from a multi-thousand dollar trip.

Not bracketing had nothing to do with the cost of film. I just wanted to say that you don’t have to if you know your camera and know what you’re doing. But maybe it was just overconfidence of youth

 

[Sirius Glass]

Consider keeping the Leica M3 as a spare/backup camera or for black & white photography.

 

[4season]

I just wanted to say that you don’t have to if you know your camera and know what you’re doing.

I never assume that I know what I'm doing, but I've gotten pretty good at faking it.

 

[RLangham]

I never assume that I know what I'm doing, but I've gotten pretty good at faking it.

I think only a couple of photographers ever REALLY knew. I was always more a Weegee than an Adams, but I tried out some (adapted) zone system stuff with a cheapie spotmeter and felt like I did okay.

 

[chuckroast]

I think only a couple of photographers ever REALLY knew. I was always more a Weegee than an Adams, but I tried out some (adapted) zone system stuff with a cheapie spotmeter and felt like I did okay.

Adams made plenty of mistakes and cared enough to turn them into tutorial moments.