Jump to content

MP rewind crank....


Recommended Posts

Michael is referring to this interesting page.

 

I sometimes think of buying one of these crank attachments to speed things up when rewinding film (I much prefer the M4-7 slanted rewind to the knob rewind that I have on my M-A) but I can't quite bring myself to spend the equivalent of 20-30 rolls of film on something that will save me 30 seconds or so each time I rewind a film (and probably gouge the knurling on the rewind knob in the process). If I was using my Leica Ms for event photography or similar I'm sure I would conclude differently and consider one of these cranks essential.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The metal screw only causes a pin prick on the rewind knob, if the camera is used and not an ornament you'd get more brass showing from finger wear. Besides, it's what happens to your top plate when halfway through a vigorous rewind the knob slips down and the crank scores the paint/chrome. If the clutch is working on the rewind shaft it only takes a few seconds longer than using the accessory crank, if the clutch is slack the crank is a good idea.

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit sceptical of the usefulness of these rewind attachments. After 12 years of ownership, I like the standard rewind on my MP and the way it is gradually brassing. I also like the way the top plate is beginning to to show signs of use but I wouldn't be too pleased with having it scored by that rewind attachment, if that's what can happen!

Edited by honcho
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have them for all four MPs in the stable.  They do make things a bit quicker, but it's still a two-handed operation as you need to apply upward pressure from one thumb while winding with the other hand in order to prevent top-plate scoring.

 

Eric

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Leica already solved this problem way back in 1967. They called it the M4.

 

But really this baffles the mind. Why would you buy a camera that needs a dinky attachment to work properly? Aesthetics are ruined by the said dinky attachment, and as has been pointed out above, the top plate might be wearing the scars. The ultimate facepalm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica already solved this problem way back in 1967. They called it the M4.

 

But really this baffles the mind. Why would you buy a camera that needs a dinky attachment to work properly? Aesthetics are ruined by the said dinky attachment, and as has been pointed out above, the top plate might be wearing the scars. The ultimate facepalm.

Setting aside for a moment the M4's obvious durability, the hypothetical would be that the straight-on rewind shaft of the Barnack leicas (a la M3) is mechanically simpler and, by definition, more robust than the more complex angled cranks. Like the M3 will make it to 120 YO while the M4 will die a young 'un at 118. Maybe.

 

The more sinister thing is this: The MP, like all cameras (Leicas here of course) takes on the face of its owner. If one begins to dictate what that face is "supposed" to look like then you've started down the rabbit hole to the Kravitz Edition. ;)

 

I don't like 'em but if you want a crank then get one and scars be damned!

s-a

Edited by semi-ambivalent
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have cranks on my MPs and find they're quicker but less comfortable than rewinding with the knob. Personally, I couldn't give a rat about damaging paint or any such aesthetic considerations, and have not found that the crank damaged the paint anyway. Also, my chrome one lost the screw that holds the little chrome knob, and Leica does not offer minor replacement parts like that, so I removed it and don't miss it. Unless you really have to have it, as I once thought I did, it's not worth the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting aside for a moment the M4's obvious durability, the hypothetical would be that the straight-on rewind shaft of the Barnack leicas (a la M3) is mechanically simpler and, by definition, more robust than the more complex angled cranks. Like the M3 will make it to 120 YO while the M4 will die a young 'un at 118. Maybe.

 

The more sinister thing is this: The MP, like all cameras (Leicas here of course) takes on the face of its owner. If one begins to dictate what that face is "supposed" to look like then you've started down the rabbit hole to the Kravitz Edition. ;)

 

I don't like 'em but if you want a crank then get one and scars be damned!

s-a

I don't think it was strictly a matter of what someone thought the MP should look like. The repair department had some input on the design, and the M4 rewind cran was, they say these days, an issue. I can collaborate this, I've have had two separate M6 rewind cranks come undone completely (twice each). They were self-fixable, but very annoying under the circumstances. I've had the MP drive train replaced once, due mostly to hard usage, but trust it implicitly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's entirely due to what someone thought the MP should look like. It was introduced in 2003 to a market of hobbyists and collectors, not professionals.

 

You personal experience aside, the M4 rewind crank was in use from 1967 to 2003 when the MP was introduced. If it was indeed so fragile, then I doubt it would have lasted for 35 years of production (if fact the M4 style rewind has been in production for longer (1967-2003) than the MP style (1954-1967; 2003-2017). Your MP requiring a drive train replaced within a maximum of 14 years usage speaks more to the general fragility of the MP rather than any implicit durability.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now full disclosure...

I've had an M6 rewind tighten up to the point where I had to remove and reinstall it. User fixable and not catastrophic.

I've also used an M2 with a bent rewind knob, the knurled section no longer went down flush with the body. It had been bent in the up position. Required parts replaced and a hefty bill. Not user fixable, but not catastrophic either.

 

Both have their issues, but the MP is as it is for aesthetics.

Edited by michaelwj
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was strictly a matter of what someone thought the MP should look like. The repair department had some input on the design, and the M4 rewind cran was, they say these days, an issue. I can collaborate this, I've have had two separate M6 rewind cranks come undone completely (twice each). They were self-fixable, but very annoying under the circumstances. I've had the MP drive train replaced once, due mostly to hard usage, but trust it implicitly.

Thanks. I was referring only to the somewhat unique wear patterns caused by an added crank and whether or not they (the patterns, not the cranks) were 'appropriate'. That's why I mentioned the Kravitz camera. Not because it's worn in a certain pattern but because it came to its wear in what I called in another post 'dishonestly'.

 

It's Leica's burden; the history of building rugged, built-to-be-used cameras but priced such that one is often inclined to treat them as if they are made of glass.

s-a

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...