Leica MP

[ColColt]

Being a Leica M fan I occasionally go to the Leica forum to see what's going on. I started following a very long thread on the MP and after seeing many photos of it and shots taken with it decided to see what B&H had them for. I damn near fainted when I saw the price...entirely out of my league. I guess I'll stay content with the M2. Although I could afford it I won't spend that kind of dough for a camera body. I wasn't even tempted. Too bad it's so expensive as it's a superb piece of German engineering and beauty.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Aside from the center weighted meter, it has no advantage over your M2. Looking at the photo of your M2 (with Leicameter) and the MP, yours is much nicer.

 

[Xmas]

All the post M7 bodies eg MP are built on a M7 body so you can't use IXMOO.

If you need fast loading the add on QL kit for a M2 is more secure than the 'tulip'.

You can get a MP in black paint if you are a ...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I got a hold of a barely used black lacquer MP (0.85) back a few years after they came out and before the 0.85 went a la carte only. Paid only $1850 from Tamarkin since some bozo had put a small gouge right next to the hot shoe. Rarely see this one less than $3k now. I have a very nice M2 and while both are equally proficient at what they do the MP is really something special I'll treasure the rest of my life. And I like the 75 and 135 finder lines too as I have both lenses, those tough to use with my M2.

 

[ColColt]

the M2 is more my style as I like the 35-50-90 frame lines and mostly the lens I use. I can't personally see a 135 lens on a rangefinder. Most of the prices I've seen for the MP exceed $4K...crazy.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

the M2 is more my style as I like the 35-50-90 frame lines and mostly the lens I use. I can't personally see a 135 lens on a rangefinder. Most of the prices I've seen for the MP exceed $4K...crazy.

I use an old chromed-brass LTM Nikkor-Q 135 with an M-adapter. Terrific performer and works in my MP quit well. They are pretty cheap too. But a little heavy.

One of these:

 

[ColColt]

Good looking setup there. Looks very pristine.

 

[ColColt]

I thought I had seen it all but this has to be the most ridiculous thing I've seen to date.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-MP-BL...-50mm-F2-LEICAVIT-Only-138-Made-/262064362422

 

[250swb]

I thought I had seen it all but this has to be the most ridiculous thing I've seen to date.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-MP-BL...-50mm-F2-LEICAVIT-Only-138-Made-/262064362422

Yes yes, that's for a true collectors camera, don't worry yourself about it.

I think this diatribe about how wonderful the M2 is verses the mega expensive production model MP needs to have some light thrown on it.

And it is true, the M2 is a wonderful camera, got a couple myself. But some people want a 28mm frameline, a built in meter is handy but not foolproof, and faster loading is useful for people who need faster loading. But 'expense' is the fly in the ointment that needs a reasoned judgement. I bought my MP new in 2003, so I work out if it disappeared into thin air with no recompense I'd have spent approximately £155 per year in owning it. But it hasn't disappeared into thin air, and in fact it's worth as much if not more as a second hand camera than I paid for it when new.

Of course the reasoned judgement isn't about how much you pay, but having the confidence that you aren't a lightweight who buys a camera one day and sells it the next. I think even the idea of renting an MP for £155 a year would make sense, but we are in a different age when the bug of short termism has even infected film cameras never mind the here-today-and-gone-tomorrow digital camera. It does beat my M2 in value, if you ascribe the value of something as the importance of the use you get out of it. My MP gets used far more than my M2 because of it's inherent advantages (to me) so money is irrelevant. That said one of my M2's I bought in 1978 for £220, a fortune back then as a poor student, and that has cost me about £6 (!) a year to own so far, and looking back through rose tinted spectacles, I wish I could have bought an MP in 1978 instead.

Steve

 

[IloveTLRs]

... I can't personally see a 135 lens on a rangefinder. ..

I have an Elmar 135 I use on LTMs and an M3. It's not as bad as you may think.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Good looking setup there. Looks very pristine.

Oh that's not mine just a random image to show the size and example of the 135 Nikkor-Q in LTM.

 

[Xmas]

Eeek

Some people can't stand the cluttered finder...
Some people can't stand the meter...

Some people use IXMOO

The M2 QL kit is faster than the tulip cause you get miss loads less frequently.

The cost is an irrelevance ditto the black paint I sold my black paint M2 it was more distracting in street shooting.

I use a 135mm FSU on a M3 cause the body is aluminium and light, same optic design as contax or nikkor.

I normally carry 3 M bodies.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Eeek

Some people can't stand the cluttered finder...

Really? I'm not sure what's so cluttered about it?

Mine, 0.85x finder, shows the 90mm frame by itself, the 50/75mm frames together and the 35/135mm frames together.

Like this:




Though being the 0.85 there are no 28mm lines in the last frame when using a 90mm lens.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Two frame lines in the finder isn't too bad, although I once shot half a roll using the wrong frame lines because I was used to a different body/lens combination.

The Nikon SP had the right way to do it.

I've had good luck with film loading on the M6 - I assume that's the same tulip mechanism as on the MP?

 

[250swb]

Can't load film, frame lines a clutter? This is getting dangerously close to the workman blaming their tools. I think if you use the same hammer for many years you get used to it, buy a new one and you hit your thumb. It's the same with cameras, perhaps its all as simple as managing expectations and new experiences realistically until the film loading can be done in the dark, or the extra frame lines become invisible to the mind's eye.

Steve