User comments btil June 2003

[jim0266]

Craig, just pop on over to the Leica forum at Photo.net and some folks there will be happy to tell you that anyone who buys an MP is totally insane. They will tell you that it's a camera made for fondlers. That the shutter speed dial goes in the wrong direction. The the pull-up rewind spindle instead of the canted rewind is proof that Leica is just making this camera for collectors. That the black paint will rub off the instant you attach a camera strap and it touches the surface of the camera. That you can buy two M6's for the price of one MP.

I've had the chance to see the MP twice now. I was very impressed with how smooth the shutter release and film advance were in the cameras. The camera just feels solid in my hands.

Life is short. If you want an MP and can afford it then buy one and don't listen to the critics. I could still be using the Pentax K1000 I first bought in junior high school after all and it would be making pictures as good as my M6 and 50mm lens. But that's not the point now, is it? No camera will make you a better photographer since it's your vision and master of the craft that determines how "good" your pictures are.

I was at a Leica Day last week and stopped by the Canon table just to take a peek at the D10 and EOS-1 digitals. After testing out the MP and playing around with those D-SLRs, I realized how much I appreciate the minimalist approach of Leica M photography. But that's where I'm at right now with my photography. For folks like me I can't believe that Leica has made a camera like the MP.

If I were a working professional I would probably be shooting with a D-SLR. Thank goodness I'm back to being an amatuer and can use the Leica just because it makes me happy.

 

[Craig24]

Jim

I'm sorry to say that you haven't helped. My favourate camera is the still the M3, so all the so called criticisms of the MP are pluses for me. I have no problem with the trad rewind, and the two cameras would work well in tandem.

The black paint is meant to come off so that you can pretend that you are a Vietnam war correspondent. You can blame Canon for the introduction of designer camera wear and tare. They stared it to give their superb "New F1" Nikon F2 credibility. I'll stick to chrome thanks.

Apart from the usual rubbish "the SS dial is too small and goes in the wrong direction" there seems to be little valid criticism of the MP around the traps. Almost deadly silence. It seems that Leica have got it right from the first one off the "production line" which is a great achievement considering the history of cameras such as the R4, R8 and M7.

As well as appreciating Leicas, my cameras are the way I pay the rent, so I'm pretty good at saying no. I did so well in not succumbing to an M6, although I came close on a couple of occasions. No regrets there. However, I'm doomed to pleasures of the MP. Well it's still fashionable to starve for ones art is it not?

BTW Jim, the Pentax K1000 is way too advanced, I'm still running a Spotmatic.

Recently I too also had a good look at the current digital options, and concluded that I'm still better off with my Leicas and a film scanner. Digital capture is wonderful stuff but it still has a long way to go. For quality imagery which is my end of the market I can't see any great advantages or savings in working time.

Regards Craig

 

[qwert]

Every one is talking about the black lacquer paint burnishing off the MP as if it is all part of a retro-fashion statement, but I'd like to know if it isn't a practical necessity, now that the top plate is made of brass instead of zinc, because, perhaps, brass is impossible to anodize. If that’s true, and it's a choice between a sturdier structure and a more durable finish, who wouldn't prefer the former?

I've also been thinking about why the shutter speed dial reverted to the original direction (compared to the TTL M6). On the MP, you probably wouldn’t turn the shutter speed dial while looking through the viewfinder because it’s back to its original size –instead, you’d use the aperture ring to adjust exposure; so it doesn’t matter if the shutter speed dial rotates in the direction of the arrows or not. But, having set your exposure value, you might want to close the aperture for more depth of field or speed up the shutter to freeze action, and you would then turn them both an equal number of stops in the same direction. That’s how the concentric shutter speed and aperture rings work on Hasselblad and Schneider lenses , and I suppose on most others as well.

I feel as if I’m overanalysing some rather superficial details; but all the talk, spin and hype about “vintage’, “traditional†and "old schoolâ€, left me confused at first. Reviving idiosyncratic quirks —which could, in an unkinder light, be perceived as design flaws— in the name of nostalgia is not in keeping with the integrity of Leica’s philosophy.

But the more I read about the MP, the more I like it. I’m not an engineer, so I can’t judge its mechanical precision; but as a photographer I do admire its purity. And I’m very grateful to Leica for giving us an alternative to the M7, which I’m sure is a fine camera, but far too exasperatingly electronic for me.

 

[colorado_jeff]

Dave wrote: And I’m very grateful to Leica for giving us an alternative to the M7, which I’m sure is a fine camera, but far too exasperatingly electronic for me.

So why didn't they just stick with the M6? I held the MP the other day, played with it a bit.. didn't seem that much different than my LHSA M6 TTL, except for the smaller shutter speed dial..
Colorado Jeff

 

[Craig24]

Dear Jeff

Adding the AE function to the basic M6 obviously broadens the market appeal for the M line. To do this you need an electronic governed shutter.

The user interface of the M7, all said and done, is basically the same as the M6. Just ignore the A on the SS dial. Jeff you could pick up an M7 and start using it and hardly notice the difference from your beloved M6. Remember, unlike some other cameras introduced to compete with Leica M, AE is not compulsory.

Why the MP? You have to understand the M5 saga to answer that question. Since the M7 is fundamentally an M6.2 (it’s shape and handling are essentially the same) What is the point of maintaining the M6. It would just divert sales from the new camera. To avert a repeat M5 experience, with recalcitrant Mers shunning what is a sound progression in Leica RF cameras, Solms needed a back up strategy. The MP is it. Sufficiently different from the M7, so not to directly compete with it, and very traditional to placate the recalcitrants.

A pretty good mix I think, Leica have done very well indeed this time round.

Craig

 

[colorado_jeff]

Craig,
Thank you. One of the most refreshing things about this list (as opposed to others) is the intelligent way questions are answered.

I appreciate the expertise!
Colorado Jeff

 

[Craig24]

Jeff

Where are my 5 stars?

 

[hektor]

Dear Craig and Jeff,

It is just a pity the MP is only available in shiny silver chrome or "designer" black. Until available in black chrome or something similarly hard wearing and low profile I and others will not buy it.

Justin

 

[Craig24]

Sorry Jeff and Justin

I should have written to “placate some of the recalcitrants†Just knock one of my stars off.

Regards Craig

 

[Craig24]

Dear David Willard

Thankyou, for your eloquent post which for some reason I had missed till now.

I think the brass thing has more to do with “reviving idiosyncratic quirksâ€. the M3s and M2s were brass. Since the MP is supposedly handmade would not brass be an easier material to machine? Perhaps the MP black finish is cheaper than the traditional enamel paint. So brass and disappearing black finish go hand in hand. Anyway, I think the idea, or excuse, behind it all is to develop a faux Vietnam War correspondent look.

Regard Craig