I love my… I love my MP

[abrewer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The newest addition to my collection

 

and a battle between my Leicas and Canons

 

An impressive collection...congratulations!!!

 

And welcome to the Forum, belatedly, but it's nice to see you posting here

[jeffrypittman]

[abrewer]

Another impressive assortment by Jeff!

[abrewer]

So I understand today we have a new member of the family, the M-A of which only 100 will be made

 

As I said in the post about the intro of M-A, an MP by another name is stilll an MP

 

If any of you are lucky enough to acquire the M-A I'd welcome your camera in this thread as it is essentially the same device (save the stainless steel construction and circuitry) as the beloved MP's above

[tadeyev]

So I understand today we have a new member of the family, the M-A of which only 100 will be made As I said in the post about the intro of M-A, an MP by another name is stilll an MP

 

In my book an M-A by any other name is just a newer version of an MP Classic ;-0)

[jcraf]

My MP - with a bit of history. See http://macfilos.com/photo/2014/520/poirots-leica-the-mysterious-affair-at-holborn

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@jcraf - what an amazing find! Congratulations on getting what is practically a piece of history. And in such good condition for a ten year old camera, too.

 

In the photo of David Suchet holding the MP in question, is that a WATE?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Archiver

[jcraf]

Thanks Archiver.

 

Having been a fan of Suchet for years, it feels a bit odd shooting with 'his' camera. Anyhow, it is a nice piece of kit. He was kind enough to Tweet me and wish me well with the camera, in addition to his message to the new user on the guarantee card.

 

Of course, the more cynical amongst us will say 'so what?'. But, as I was hankering after another MP anyway, this one has that little bit more to it. A 0.58 finder was the icing on the cake for me.

 

In that pic, it looks very much like a MATE to me, rather than a WATE. The finder is wrong for the WATE - I'd expect him to be using the Frankenfinder with that lens. He also appears to have a Leicavit mounted, with the special half case to allow its use.

 

Regards

[Penzes]

 

Leica MP [analog madness] by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr

 

Leica M7 0,58

Visoflex III

Elmar-V 65/3.5 black

Rollei ATP 1.1 ISO 40

Sekonic L-308S

Imacon Flextight 343

[kivis]

I just recently sold my M6 classics and moved to the MP. I'm really happy with it and can't imagine how it could be improved. It's great as is, for work and for play.

 

[ATTACH]32353[/ATTACH]

M6's are pretty nice cameras. What did you gain by going to the MP?

[kivis]

 

This can't be done with sandpaper

 

Seriously, I see people using foreign devices, to give their gear a "proper" look like the people, who ridiculously slashed their jeans back in the 90's ;-)

 

Ah we were slashing our jeans back in the 60's dude!!

[menos I M6]

Akiva, the wear on my old M8.2 in the picture from 2011 is actual wear. My M9 and MM start to wear in the very same fashion, although very slowly compared to the very different (quick wearing) M8.2 thin black lacquer.

 

I also do not wear sand paper gloves btw - oh and I never slashed my jeans - they always were worn out naturally.

[Penzes]

Leicavit Black Paint by Istvan Penzes, on Flickr

 

Leica M7 0,58

Visoflex III

Elmar-V 65/3.5 black

Rollei ATP 1.1 ISO 40

Sekonic L-308S

Imacon Flextight 343

[kivis]

Akiva, the wear on my old M8.2 in the picture from 2011 is actual wear. My M9 and MM start to wear in the very same fashion, although very slowly compared to the very different (quick wearing) M8.2 thin black lacquer.

 

I also do not wear sand paper gloves btw - oh and I never slashed my jeans - they always were worn out naturally.

Ya I was actually lying to make a point. I just wore jeans until they died on their own.

[jlindstrom]

Visited a local Leica dealer yesterday and saw the MP for the first time, properly, in "flesh". My god that thing looks great.. instant GAS attack.

 

They had both black and silver versions on display right next to modern digital M's and side-by-side, the MP looked tiny

 

Surprisingly, the silver seemed nicer.. I wasn't anticipating that.

 

Good thing I managed to avoid touching them. I have a feeling that would have turned out expensive :-D

 

//Juha

[honcho]

?.......

Good thing I managed to avoid touching them. I have a feeling that would have turned out expensive :-D

 

//Juha

 

Only expensive if it isn't being used.

 

I chose back lacquer in 2005 because I like it. At the time, I dismissed Leica's idea that paint wear and brass showing through somehow personalises the camera as a memento of events and places visited as being little more than marketing nonsense.

 

As time has gone by, I find there is truth in the hype. A scuffed silver MP just looks worn but a black MP with brassing from use and travel has dignity.

Edited June 3, 2014 by honcho

[Archiver]

Visited a local Leica dealer yesterday and saw the MP for the first time, properly, in "flesh". My god that thing looks great.. instant GAS attack.

 

They had both black and silver versions on display right next to modern digital M's and side-by-side, the MP looked tiny

 

Surprisingly, the silver seemed nicer.. I wasn't anticipating that.

 

Good thing I managed to avoid touching them. I have a feeling that would have turned out expensive :-D

 

 

It's strange, but some years ago, the M series just didn't click with me. I saw a mint silver chrome MP in the dealer's cabinet, and asked to see this much vaunted treasure. But when I held it, it just didn't do it for me. It was perplexing, as I loved my Zeiss Ikon, and I was expecting the MP to send me into paroxysms of gear lust. But it didn't.

 

Same thing happened with the M8. Held it, didn't like it. It didn't feel right.

 

And yet, when I bought the M9, something had changed. Not the camera, because the M9 physically feels like the M8, but me. I had the bug. And now I regularly read this thread, drool over the pictures, and thump myself for somehow not realizing what a beautiful camera the MP is. I could have been shooting that silver chrome baby for years now.

[jcraf]

They had both black and silver versions on display right next to modern digital M's and side-by-side, the MP looked tiny //Juha

 

Yes, I was surprised how 'big' the M240 is compared to any film M (except perhaps the M5).

 

It's one of those occasions where bulk has been added to a classic design 'by stealth' (and of course due to necessity, given the M240's functional capability)

 

To me, the original form and size of the M3 (which is more or less echoed in the MP give or take a few mm in camera depth) cannot be bettered.

 

Regards

[jlindstrom]

To me, the original form and size of the M3 (which is more or less echoed in the MP give or take a few mm in camera depth) cannot be bettered.

 

I've never used a classic film M, but just looking at it the size seems so right.. been salivating over mp photos all day :-)

 

//Juha

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[menos I M6]

You should have held it Juha.

 

@ Archiver - the modern ZI is a grey camera with a fantastic finder + it is very lightweight.

…*but I promise you, if you would have tried a MP (or any of it's derivatives in form of the classic body film Ms) with a Leicavit (or Rapidwinder), it would have left an impression.

 

I love the compact size of the M3 - MP and like especially the ergonomics of this body size with a Leicavit.

 

Due to digital Ms though mine do not see much use anymore.