M-A has updated rangefinder?

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M 240 has an updated rangefinder mechanism that many find focuses more easily and accurately than that of the M9. I wonder if the M-A shares the same mechanical advantages in its rangefinder?

 

And if so, it would be very good if this upgrade were to find its way into the M7 and MP over time.

[jmr237]

Interesting question. Based on the official materials from Leica, I would assume that it does not have an updated rangefinder design. The press release says that: "the technical specifications of the Leica M-A are essentially based on the currently available analogue Leica MP".

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[baci]

I'm pretty sure Erwin Puts made a comment that the finder was superior to that of the MP - if memory serves he thought it was the best Leica finder ever. I too am interested in whether this is enthusiasm or whether there is some kind of substantive difference.

[wattsy]

I doubt that the finder mechanics are any different to the MP (of course the frame masks are) but it is true that I am very happy indeed with the focussing and clarity of my M-A and that hasn't always been the case with M bodies I have bought over the years.

[sblitz]

+1

[Archiver]

Interesting question. Based on the official materials from Leica, I would assume that it does not have an updated rangefinder design. The press release says that: "the technical specifications of the Leica M-A are essentially based on the currently available analogue Leica MP".

 

Depending on how the mechanism fits into the top plate, it might be in Leica's interests to use the updated rangefinder in their other cameras. They obviously already have the tooling to create the mechanism, and this cost can be spread over all units that carry it. It would also make the newer models more attractive to discerning buyers.

 

By the way, I remember a while back you were thinking about a MP or Monochrom. If you haven't made that decision yet, the M-A might interest you as well.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stefan Daniel said in this video interview with Thorsten (watch from about the 10:30 mark) that almost everything in the M was new, except for the RF mechanism, which was taken from the M9, but was improved for accuracy.

 

He didn't explain how the accuracy was improved, but many surmise that it was built to tighter tolerances. Others speculate that the internally illuminated frame lines, and the corresponding elimination of the external light, improved contrast and enhanced the ability to see and more clearly focus. Or some combination.

 

Jeff

[jmr237]

By the way, I remember a while back you were thinking about a MP or Monochrom. If you haven't made that decision yet, the M-A might interest you as well.

 

Good memory! I was indeed considering the MP and Monochrom. I decided to get an M6, which meant I could shift more of my budget toward lenses.

 

I have been very happy with the M6. However, I still can't resist the allure of a new Leica and am thinking about an MP or M-A. I have been using the M6 without batteries, so the M-A is an attractive option.

[Archiver]

Good memory! I was indeed considering the MP and Monochrom. I decided to get an M6, which meant I could shift more of my budget toward lenses.

 

I have been very happy with the M6. However, I still can't resist the allure of a new Leica and am thinking about an MP or M-A. I have been using the M6 without batteries, so the M-A is an attractive option.

 

I have to admit that I've been thinking about these options myself, so I've been reading some threads over the last few months.

 

Glad to know you are very happy with your M6. I've had my M7 for a while, but the thought of a mechanical M is intriguing.

[bocaburger]

My $0.02: If you want a battery-less M with a crisp, clear, flare-free finder, find a nice M4 in the $1000 range and have it CLA'd. It's a piece of history, with build quality that has not since and will never again be repeated on a Leica. Plus unlike a new MA you won't lose more than the few hundred cost of the CLA on it if you decide to sell it.

 

I have owned one of almost every M body over the years including M7 and MP, and when I went digital I kept my original pair of M4's. To me they were the apex of film M design and production.

[A miller]

I find the crispy clean, bright and brand new VF of the MA superior to any M4 one can purchase right now, or any other very old M film body. This is a material functional advantage and worth paying quite a bit of extra money for. As wonderful as my mint condition M3 is, the VF is not nearly as bright as a new film M, and the focusing patch is nice but nowhere near where it was in its glory days. This doesn't matter all that much all the time, but when it doesn't it is annoying, and if the camera wasn't so beautiful I might be of the mind to stop using it.

[mole73]

The basis for the analogue M-models including M-A and M7 is the "MP-finder" introduced in 2003 with the MP.

 

For the digital M-models beginning with the M8 the finder magnification had to be modified because of the different distance to sensor.

 

Robert

[mole73]

The next evolution of the M-finder was the development of the M (Typ 240).

 

So you have two different ways of finder-evolution:

 

the analogue finder = the MP - finder

 

the digital finder = the M (Typ 240) - finder

[otto.f]

Stefan Daniel said in this video interview with Thorsten (watch from about the 10:30 mark) that almost everything in the M was new, except for the RF mechanism, which was taken from the M9, but was improved for accuracy.

 

Jeff

 

That is my guess too, they just do it better with smaller tolerances in the end control, but no systemic change. After replacement of my sensor on my M9 it was better than ever and easier to focus. I see no difference now between M and M9.

[A miller]

to be clear, in my last post I was simply comparing a brand new VF to one that has weathered as 3-5 decades of elements. Fact is that VFs lose their spunk over a long period of time. They are not as bright as they once were, and there really is not way to restore their vibrance and contrasty focusing patch. So today's newly manufactured VFs will in variably be easier

(much easier in some cases) to focus with, whether it is an MP or MA (or M7, I suppose)

[sblitz]

I loved my M4 but when I went in to check the M-A and looked through the view finder and compared with the M4 (and M6) which I had with me the improved brightness of the VF was so apparent it moved me to buy it. I don't have the same eyes I had in 1968, when my M4 was made ......... since using the M-A I believe the RF is more accurate or at least I can focus it more accurately.

[TomB_tx]

This thread makes my wonder - I find the finder of my Zeiss Ikon ZM much clearer and easier to focus than any of my Ms (3,4,5,6). Perhaps it is more of an age issue, or modern multi coatings, than the Zeiss design. I'll have to check out an M-A.

[A miller]

Hi Tom - I'd be interested to know what your conclusion is after trying out the MA VF

[bocaburger]

I sold my MP's just before I got an M8 in 2007. That was the last time I could compare the MP rangefinder to my M4's and there was absolutely no difference in brightness, clarity or contrast. My M4's were CLA'd about 2004 and DAG of course cleaned the rangefinder optics, which is why in my earlier post I specified having an M4 CLA'd.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[GarySHough]

I purchased an M-A last week and shot a roll of HP5-400 using my Elmarit 90 2.8 in a dim lit horse barn of our granddaughter riding her horse. What a pleasure to just shoot with the basics. Quiet, heavy and German engineering. As to viewfinder brightness, using my old bloodshot eyes and a very unscientific test under low light, I can find little difference between the M-A, newer MP, M7, M6, M4, M2, M3 or M240. My M9 was not as bright, which was one of the reasons it was traded for the M240.