kenneth Posted March 2, 2009 Share #941 Posted March 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think what Kenneth may be alluding to is that the wear is not natural... Me thinks you are right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Hi kenneth, Take a look here I love my MP. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thrid Posted March 2, 2009 Share #942 Posted March 2, 2009 (edited) I think what Kenneth may be alluding to is that the wear is not natural... It's Eliott Erwitt's camera. He's been a Magnum shooter for the past few decades and also was president of the agency for several years. I don't think he feels the need to pad his resume by artificially ageing his camera... Redirection Elliott Ewritt Edited March 2, 2009 by thrid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dk_samurai Posted March 2, 2009 Share #943 Posted March 2, 2009 Kenneth, another example of a worn MP with black paint here. And just for looks, a worn chrome M4 here. Another thread had a newer MP try to look like a worn MP by sandpapering it. It was very obvious that it wasn't naturally earned wear. I have no doubt in my mind that the MP used by Elliot is indeed genuine. /David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 2, 2009 Share #944 Posted March 2, 2009 It's Eliott Erwitt's camera. He's been a Magnum shooter for the past few decades and also was president of the agency for several years. I don't think he feels the need to pad his resume by artificially ageing his camera.. Agreed, a ludicrous suggestion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 2, 2009 Share #945 Posted March 2, 2009 I once knew somebody that did that to a Black Nikon F3 believing it looked like a well used pro camera Chris Weeks can answer for himself but I think you'll find he uses his cameras enough not to need to pretend to be a pro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted March 2, 2009 Share #946 Posted March 2, 2009 The post by David (welcome to the forum! ) with the links out to other worn cameras show bodies that have wear you might expect. I bought a well-used black MP a couple of years ago and it shows a wee bit of brassing where those bodies are most worn. The photograph of this camera (which could well be Erwitt's for all I know) has been discussed elsewhere and the issue is that the wear doesn't look normal. For example the top plate - how come the engraved area isn't worn - isn't that a too perfect square around the engraving? Also the lens - wouldn't you expect the scalloped part of the focusing ring and maybe the aperture ring to be worn, but the rear section of the focusing ring with the distance engraving and the DOF scale of the barrel? Personally I don't care one way or the other whether the wear on the camera is real or fake but it does look a bit dodgy to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted March 2, 2009 Share #947 Posted March 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The post by David (welcome to the forum! ) with the links out to other worn cameras show bodies that have wear you might expect. I bought a well-used black MP a couple of years ago and it shows a wee bit of brassing where those bodies are most worn. The photograph of this camera (which could well be Erwitt's for all I know) has been discussed elsewhere and the issue is that the wear doesn't look normal. For example the top plate - how come the engraved area isn't worn - isn't that a too perfect square around the engraving? Also the lens - wouldn't you expect the scalloped part of the focusing ring and maybe the aperture ring to be worn, but the rear section of the focusing ring with the distance engraving and the DOF scale of the barrel? Personally I don't care one way or the other whether the wear on the camera is real or fake but it does look a bit dodgy to me. Peter- I agree it does not look right to me. The wear looks too uniform in certain areas, particularly in some of the areas that would not be subject wear. I am very much involved in furniture restoration and cabinetmaking and the effect on this camera would be referred to as posers patina Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dk_samurai Posted March 2, 2009 Share #948 Posted March 2, 2009 Hey Peter and Kenneth, I've seen photographers tape over the camera maker logo with black tape of some kind (usually electric tape). Could something like that have been done to Elliott Erwitt's camera on the top? As in he either tried to hide the fact that his camera was a Leica (for some reason or another) or maybe he simply had his name put on the top of the camera, just as Thomas Hoepker did on the back of his? If you later were to remove the name tag, I would assume that the black paint would still be seen underneath - therefor the "square" patch of black paint on the top of Elliott's MP? I'm not saying you are wrong at all. I'm just getting into the world of Leica and hopefully will get an MP myself in the near future. I've yet to decide what color it shall be, so I've joined this forum to find out more before my purchase:) /David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted March 3, 2009 Share #949 Posted March 3, 2009 For example the top plate - how come the engraved area isn't worn - isn't that a too perfect square around the engraving? Also the lens - wouldn't you expect the scalloped part of the focusing ring and maybe the aperture ring to be worn, but the rear section of the focusing ring with the distance engraving and the DOF scale of the barrel? Any number of factors could account for that rectangular area of paint left on the top. It seems to me that anyone deliberately brassing their camera or even caring how it looked would be careful to avoid such a wear pattern. As for the lens, the black paint version of that iteration of the Summilux has a brass barrel and mount, but aluminum front section including focusing and aperture rings. The wear there does not look the same and is not as apparent as with the brass. Having said that, I think you guys are over-analyzing this and attaching too much importance to the looks of the camera. If brassing causes you such consternation, avoid getting a black paint MP and definitely avoid carrying more than one body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted March 3, 2009 Share #950 Posted March 3, 2009 ...As for the lens, the black paint version of that iteration of the Summilux has a brass barrel and mount, but aluminum front section including focusing and aperture rings. The wear there does not look the same and is not as apparent as with the brass. Having said that, I think you guys are over-analyzing this and attaching too much importance to the looks of the camera. If brassing causes you such consternation, avoid getting a black paint MP and definitely avoid carrying more than one body. You know I did wonder about the front section, but then I thought nah, the scalloped part of the focusing ring and the part where the distance engraving is are all one piece... No consternation, as I said above I don't really care one way or the other, it just looked dodgy that's all. I do use two black MPs (an 0.85x MP and an MP3) and I use them as a pair and I don't mollycoddle them either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangefinder101 Posted March 3, 2009 Share #951 Posted March 3, 2009 Easy guys. They're only light-tight boxes to hold your film. Heathen!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted March 3, 2009 Share #952 Posted March 3, 2009 Heathen!! Originally quoted by- Originally Posted by fotografr Easy guys. They're only light-tight boxes to hold your film. Here is someone who speaks alot of sense. A camera is a light tight box nothing more nothing less. The results that come out of that box with a lot of natural talent on behalf of the user i.e. the picture are what it is all about by which time it has transcended the box and has to stand on it's own merits. So forget boxes- talk pictures Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted March 4, 2009 Share #953 Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) I find the new BP cameras quite reslient (I have two) and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest the paint is far tougher than the old BP. I have a few swirls, crapes, scratches, a touch of brassing, but nothing to get excited (or upset) about. I do work in a conflict zone, but have not stopped any 7.62 with my camera body or scratched it up so I can tell stores.... In fact I actively avoid situations which could result in an end to my photography (and me). I don't look for trouble, just as I don't look to wear my kit. I tend to hold one camera at a time and try not to let things clank about unless I am working fast and cannot avoid it, but I am careful with the optics and range/viewfinder windows. All this 'image' associated with brassed cameras is bo11ocks. You can't bulls**t your way to being a 'real photographer', whatever that is. I use my cameras to take the pictures I want. Where that leads me or what is makes me I am not terribly concerned about. You either have the images and experiences to go with a worn camera or you just have a well worn camera and confused aspirations. I suspect the majority of people who go on and on an on about their brassed beauties have nothing but drivel in their portfolios (horrible assumption I know). Its almost as if some people want to use their BP bodies, not to take pictures, but so that they have 'real patina'. I can imagine some would sneer at a person wandering about with a new looking camera, without stopping to think that it could be one of the best photographer of the 21st century who just got a replacement body.... Its the same as someone with few posts on a forum; they have to be a novice, right? Rights of passage: Worn Leica and lots of posts LOL! Sure BP is pretty, but I will give you one really good reason to own BP over silver chrome (in addition to the fact that it is not a bright shiny silver thing): the grip is far greater on a BP body. Try it, the grip is far surer. The satin chrome finish is kinda like 'teflon lite' in comparison and I notice the difference whenever I pick up my chrome bodies. The BP is grippy on the grip and metal. The chrome is grippy on the grip and kinda slippy on the metal. Edited March 4, 2009 by batmobile 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
antistatic Posted March 4, 2009 Share #954 Posted March 4, 2009 Do you mean I will have to put away the steel wool and start taking good photos to get any cred around here? Sigh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 4, 2009 Share #955 Posted March 4, 2009 Originally quoted by- Originally Posted by fotografr Easy guys. They're only light-tight boxes to hold your film. Here is someone who speaks alot of sense. A camera is a light tight box nothing more nothing less. The results that come out of that box with a lot of natural talent on behalf of the user i.e. the picture are what it is all about by which time it has transcended the box and has to stand on it's own merits. So forget boxes- talk pictures Your quote is correct, they are ( or should be ) , light tight boxes for taking photographs and it is the photographs that matter. But the follow up "forget boxes" doesn't work as the box chosen has a profound effect/affect on the photograph. I work and see differently with my 6x6 than my 35mm, not least because one is waist level finder, and no doubt was I fortunate enough to use a 5x4 or 10 x 8 the tripod would again influence my vision. A good/great photographer will produce work of quality from any "box" but the choice of box can be crucial in realising the individual vision. Now to argue that a choice between 35mm cameras, or even between black and chrome Leicas, is another step but you cannot discount that some photographers feel that choice influences their work. So yes "talk pictures" but don't forget the box either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leitzmac Posted March 4, 2009 Share #956 Posted March 4, 2009 Your quote is correct, they are ( or should be ) , light tight boxes for taking photographs and it is the photographs that matter. But the follow up "forget boxes" doesn't work as the box chosen has a profound effect/affect on the photograph. I work and see differently with my 6x6 than my 35mm, not least because one is waist level finder, and no doubt was I fortunate enough to use a 5x4 or 10 x 8 the tripod would again influence my vision. A good/great photographer will produce work of quality from any "box" but the choice of box can be crucial in realising the individual vision. Now to argue that a choice between 35mm cameras, or even between black and chrome Leicas, is another step but you cannot discount that some photographers feel that choice influences their work. So yes "talk pictures" but don't forget the box either. Couldn't agree more! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaoptik Posted March 4, 2009 Share #957 Posted March 4, 2009 You know I did wonder about the front section, but then I thought nah, the scalloped part of the focusing ring and the part where the distance engraving is are all one piece... No consternation, as I said above I don't really care one way or the other, it just looked dodgy that's all. I do use two black MPs (an 0.85x MP and an MP3) and I use them as a pair and I don't mollycoddle them either. Hi Peter, I just bought a Leicavit for my MP3- not the LHSA-Type, in BP. Now I see a difference in the lacquer. The paint from the Leicavit is not that shiny as the paint on the MP3. Can you tell me, do you see the difference also on your bodies? The MP compared to the MP3? I the MP lacquer matter than the one of the MP3? It is not a problem for me, the normal Leicavit is fine on my MP3- I' am just wondering if there is a difference between the surface painting from MP and MP3. Thanx for the info, Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted March 4, 2009 Share #958 Posted March 4, 2009 Sure BP is pretty, but I will give you one really good reason to own BP over silver chrome (in addition to the fact that it is not a bright shiny silver thing): the grip is far greater on a BP body. Try it, the grip is far surer. The satin chrome finish is kinda like 'teflon lite' in comparison and I notice the difference whenever I pick up my chrome bodies. The BP is grippy on the grip and metal. The chrome is grippy on the grip and kinda slippy on the metal. First, let me say that I agree with your entire post even though I'm not quoting the whole thing. Another thing that always amuses me is when people complain about putting a chrome lens on a black body. Camera aesthetics is not the deciding factor here. Second, you are right about the grip and this is true for black chrome cameras as well. Third, we're long overdue for some MP porn! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267593-i-love-my-mp/?do=findComment&comment=828365'>More sharing options...
peter_n Posted March 4, 2009 Share #959 Posted March 4, 2009 Hi Peter, I just bought a Leicavit for my MP3- not the LHSA-Type, in BP. Now I see a difference in the lacquer. The paint from the Leicavit is not that shiny as the paint on the MP3. Can you tell me, do you see the difference also on your bodies? The MP compared to the MP3? I the MP lacquer matter than the one of the MP3? It is not a problem for me, the normal Leicavit is fine on my MP3- I' am just wondering if there is a difference between the surface painting from MP and MP3. Philip it seems to me that the paint job on the MP3 is much better than on the MP. This is my kit with a 28/50 pair. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267593-i-love-my-mp/?do=findComment&comment=828580'>More sharing options...
JBA Posted March 4, 2009 Share #960 Posted March 4, 2009 Second, you are right about the grip and this is true for black chrome cameras as well. Just wanted to clarify that what I meant is that black chrome cameras are slicker than black paint cameras. 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