Stealth3kpl Posted December 2, 2014 Share #61 Posted December 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Pete,The height of the M7 (and M6 TTL) is 25 mm more than the classical body dimensions of the MP and their predecessors. Robert That sounds a lot? An inch? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Hi Stealth3kpl, Take a look here I love my M7.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
madNbad Posted December 2, 2014 Share #62 Posted December 2, 2014 More like 2.5 mm. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted December 2, 2014 Share #63 Posted December 2, 2014 I see, the M7 2.5mm higher and 4mm thicker than the MP. That extra brass and the difference mention by Keith account for the weight difference. The M7 is brass isn't it? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madNbad Posted December 2, 2014 Share #64 Posted December 2, 2014 Like the M6 TTL the increased height is due to the TTL flash circuitry. There are additional electronics in the M7 for the shutter and the DX reader. Maybe a little more brass for the top plate and a bigger circuit board might account for weight difference. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 2, 2014 Share #65 Posted December 2, 2014 I see, the M7 2.5mm higher and 4mm thicker than the MP. I don't think there is any difference in thickness, Pete. I've owned both and the baseplates (and accessories like the Motor-M) are fully interchangeable. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madNbad Posted December 3, 2014 Share #66 Posted December 3, 2014 Same length (138 mm), same depth (38 mm) but the M7 is 2.5 mm taller and 25 grams heavier. Who would have thought a manufacturer, in this day, to have three film cameras, all about the same size and price, with the option from fully manual with no electronics at all, a model that adds a built in meter for convenience or a model with auto exposure and TTL flash? 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mole73 Posted December 3, 2014 Share #67 Posted December 3, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) That sounds a lot? An inch?Pete Sorry Pete, my fault! 2.5mm is correct. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share #68 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Hi All , with your discussions to a difference value of 2 mm, I went looking, to verify in Wiki LUF.It also interests me. I found these numbers,compared with the book of Erwin Puts a minimal difference (difference of 2 mm). I do not know the reason, perhaps not the same measurement method Here's what I found: Weight(g)/Length/Height/Depth (cms) M2 (1957-1968) 580g - 138x77x 33.5 M3 (1954-1968) 580g - 138x77x33.5 M4 (1967-1975) 545g - 138x77x33.5 M4P(1981-1987) 545g - 138x77x38 M5(1971-1975) 645g - 150x87x36 M6(1984-2003) 600g - 138x79.5x38 M7(2002…) 610g - 138x79.5x 38 MP(2003…) 600g - 138x77x 38 MA(2014...) 578g - 138x77x38 First remarks: M2,M3 and M4 has only 33,5 cms depth M6, M7, MP turn around 600 g weight The M5 is the heaviest, longest, highest, but narrower (36cms) M2 and M3 heaviest than M4 and M4P (the 2 lightest of all) M4P, M6,M7,MP and new M-A are the deepest (38cms) The new MA is the lightest and is less heavy than MP Best Henry Edited December 3, 2014 by Doc Henry 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted December 3, 2014 Share #69 Posted December 3, 2014 I brought my M4 in to compare side by side to the MA and found them exactly the same. -- placing them next to each other and on top and bottom to bottom they measured exactly alike. So I am not sure who is doing these measurements and how. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share #70 Posted December 3, 2014 I brought my M4 in to compare side by side to the MA and found them exactly the same. -- placing them next to each other and on top and bottom to bottom they measured exactly alike. So I am not sure who is doing these measurements and how. Steve,the M4P and MA has the same measure : 138x77x38 we agree Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 3, 2014 Share #71 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) The 33.5 must be mistaken with the pre-war generation IIIf and so on, the difference is almost half a cm. M3 and newer are all 38 And I thought the M5 was a bit thicker, but I don't know it from experience The Wiki needs corrections Edited December 3, 2014 by otto.f 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted December 3, 2014 Share #72 Posted December 3, 2014 FWIW, the IIIf next to me measures 30 mm in body depth, according to my desk ruler and excluding protuberations like eyepiece, mount or speed dial. For the M5 I just checked, the ruler tells 33 mm, including the protuding window frame but nothing else. I do not recall my MP being any thicker than my M3 and I used to carry both in the same M4 case (sequentially though ) Alexander ("Never believe a statistic that you did not falsify yourself". Author unknown.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share #73 Posted December 3, 2014 I just measured my M7 : exactly 133x79.5 but 33,5 instead 38 (Wiki) from edge to edge without "protrusions" Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 3, 2014 Share #74 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) So M3-M7 is same mold as MP and M-A M8 & M9 new mold M240 new mold Separate molds for topplate through decades Edited December 3, 2014 by otto.f 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted December 3, 2014 Share #75 Posted December 3, 2014 Thanks, Doc Henry, protusions it should have been. Without those but including the window frames, my M3 is in the 33mm range of depth... So, yes, I would say the classic film bodies share this dimension - for all practical purposes... Of course, heights differ. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted December 3, 2014 Share #76 Posted December 3, 2014 agree! glad that's settled . . . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 3, 2014 Share #77 Posted December 3, 2014 Leica brochures: Depth M9, M-E, MM: 37mm Depth M240 : 42mm Just to reconfuse a bit, because some people hold that the M is only half a mm thicker than M9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted December 3, 2014 Share #78 Posted December 3, 2014 Oh yes I remember first time I picked up the M240 and if felt quite a bit bigger than M9 and then I picked up M4. ...... Perfection for my hands. MA feels the same except sharper edges on the top Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 3, 2014 Share #79 Posted December 3, 2014 I wasna hand-held Meyer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share #80 Posted December 4, 2014 I wasna hand-held Meyer Pico what do you mean by that ? Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now