Internal differences between M2 and MP

[Leicalott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Leica world!

I’m tossing up between purchasing a Kanto overhauled M2 black repaint, with updated M6 viewfinder (which looks beautiful), or a brand new MP.

I have two broad questions: I understand that the Leicas of old were made with the ‘fit and finish’ approach, including brass gears. Whenever I hear technicians speak about the older Leicas, they say that they’re just on a different level compared to newer Leicas. So, my first question is, what are they actually referring to? If I was to pull each one apart and look inside, what would I see as different?

and secondly, given the M2 has 60+ years on it, will the internal gears, no matter how premium, die much sooner than a brand new Leica? Or will they continue on for as long as they are serviced?

Thank you for indulging me!

NB. These two cameras are also the same in price.

[Bronco McBeast]

Why a repaint? Repaints are just killing the pool of great original Leicas.

I’d totally buy a new MP. My money would go to Leica, not to semi-counterfeiting shops.

[Advertisement]

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

[madNbad]

The M2 has the spool load. Remove the spool, attach the film, replace the spool and film cassette, replace the baseplate. The MP has the rapid load. Remove the baseplate, plull enough leader to fit between the prongs of the tulip, replace the baseplate, wind twice. A lot faster and easier.

The MP has an internal light meter that is quite accurate. A separate meter is needed for the M2.

I owned a M2 and loved it but I also owned  a M6 with a built in meter and loved that one too. The MP will be easier to use and the build quality is good. Fit and finish was replaced with the M4-2. I currently own a M4 which was built to the old standard in Germany and a M4-2 built with steel gears and the replaceable parts model. In real use, I can’t tell the difference both are fine and since it came back from being serviced, I use the M4-2 exclusively. 
Either one is a good choice. Much of it is determined on how you want to use it.

Welcome to the forum!

[grahamc]

I have an MP and M6 and find the rangefinder patch noticeably more contrasty in the MP , meaning it's quicker and easier to get focus confidently for wide aperture shooting.  For me this probably has a more direct impact on quality of output than the smoothness of the camera, so is the most important difference to me.  

My M6 is smoother but if taking one camera I reach for the MP for this reason.  I've been (very) tempted to add M4 or M2, but would probably choose again something with MP generation viewfinder if I am to buy another body, possibly M-A.  

Edited August 26 by grahamc

[Leicalott]

Thanks for your replies!

Im definitely aware of the functional differences between them.

I guess, if I were to phrase the question another way (and this might sound ridiculous), but -

What I’m trying to determine is whether the Leicas of old were only made a certain way because that’s the technology they had at the time, or whether they are made a different way now because capitalism etc.. has changed the way we work? Meaning, employees simply can’t put the same amount of effort/time into things now because companies have to pay people more fairly and so you just can’t attain the same level of craftsmanship these days? In other words, if the workers of Leica’s yesteryear had access to today’s machines/tolerances, would they use them or would they scoff at them?

And yes, this is purely about the pleasure I derive from conceptual, mechanical craftsmanship, as opposed to how good my photos will be (but it is still very important to me, nonetheless!)

Thank you, again!

[M10R]

If you don’t know why you want to buy a M2 beside the “repaint”, than obviously a brand new MP is more suitable to you. I know both are expensive, but you can afford either one, so don’t waste time to struggle. Buy either one asap and enjoy shooting films everyday. However, I choose brand new MP over a repaint M, no matter which model.

Edited August 26 by M10R

[madNbad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Leicalott said:

Thanks for your replies!

Im definitely aware of the functional differences between them.

I guess, if I were to phrase the question another way (and this might sound ridiculous), but -

What I’m trying to determine is whether the Leicas of old were only made a certain way because that’s the technology they had at the time, or whether they are made a different way now because capitalism etc.. has changed the way we work? Meaning, employees simply can’t put the same amount of effort/time into things now because companies have to pay people more fairly and so you just can’t attain the same level of craftsmanship these days? In other words, if the workers of Leica’s yesteryear had access to today’s machines/tolerances, would they use them or would they scoff at them?

And yes, this is purely about the pleasure I derive from conceptual, mechanical craftsmanship, as opposed to how good my photos will be (but it is still very important to me, nonetheless!)

Thank you, again!

It was a financial decision. In the mid 1970's Leica was a has been player and they made a series of decisions that were loosing both money and market share. They invested heavily in the SL single lens reflex system.   Made to the highest quality with stunning lenses to go with it. Nikon could pump out a hunded F2's in the time it took to build an SL. The pros were locked into Nikon and Canon, Leica was a bit player for dentist.

The M5 kerfuffle; the M5 is a brilliant design that  was a complete departure from previous M cameras. It had a built in in meter, it was designed to be able to change the shutter speeds with your eye at the viewfinder and the camera strap lugs were designed to carry the camera in a vertical instead of a horizontal position. In short it was a sales disaster. They sat on dealers shelves unsold costing Leica money.

The CL; in combination with Minolta, Leica introduced a small, short rangefinder base camera designed for travelers. It was based around the combination of a 40mm and 90 mm lens combination. It was successful but also stole market share from the M5, making more money for Minolta than Leica.

The move to Canada; the decision was made to shift operation from Wetzlar to Midland, Canada. There would be savings in labor cost and the change to the camera came there. It was too expensive to continue production of the M4 but with some changes, Leica felt it could hold it's traditional customers. The M4 body shell and top plate were maintained, the gearing was changed from hand fitted brass to machine stamped steel that was both stronger and cheaper to produce. A hot shoe was added and with the stronger steel gears, a motordive was introduced. The M4-2 had some teething problems but once corrected layed the groundwork for the MP of today.

[M10R]

44 minutes ago, Leicalott said:

Thanks for your replies!

Im definitely aware of the functional differences between them.

I guess, if I were to phrase the question another way (and this might sound ridiculous), but -

What I’m trying to determine is whether the Leicas of old were only made a certain way because that’s the technology they had at the time, or whether they are made a different way now because capitalism etc.. has changed the way we work? Meaning, employees simply can’t put the same amount of effort/time into things now because companies have to pay people more fairly and so you just can’t attain the same level of craftsmanship these days? In other words, if the workers of Leica’s yesteryear had access to today’s machines/tolerances, would they use them or would they scoff at them?

And yes, this is purely about the pleasure I derive from conceptual, mechanical craftsmanship, as opposed to how good my photos will be (but it is still very important to me, nonetheless!)

Thank you, again!

Either one can make excellent photos, to me, most cameras are very similar. Photography is the art of seeing. But if you’re a collector, then forget what I said. However, I prefer speculating on stocks to investing in anything.

Edited August 26 by M10R

[Tom R]

Never owned an MP. I owned and used an M2 for nearly 30 years, however. I currently use M4s and M4-Ps--largely for practical reasons, i.e., additional finders and having a hot-shoe on the M4-Ps simplifies life if one uses modern flash units ... .

That said, the M2 has a very clean, i.e., decluttered, view finder. In the thirty years that I used the M2 I don't recall ANY serious problems. A CLA maybe every decade kept that thing running like butter. I have it on "permanent loan" to a niece who is living in Germany and is interested in photography.

 Unless you need/want the fast-loading mechanism, 28 and 75mm finders, and steel, as opposed to brass, gears I'd say buy the camera that you'll use. I would only note, in closing, that the MP has a meter and is about forty years newer than the pre-digital M bodies. When I last checked, most technicians could work on MAs but I don't know about the MP because of the meter ... perhaps other on this Forum can assist?

[madNbad]

8 minutes ago, Tom R said:

When I last checked, most technicians could work on MAs but I don't know about the MP because of the meter ... perhaps other on this Forum can assist?

The M6 was introduced in 1984 and most of them have meters that work properly. The scare was from the TTL flash circuitry on those cameras that had it, a few failed and no one has replacements for that particular part. A MP purchase today will have a meter that last for years.

[raizans]

I’d take a Kanto M2 over a new MP any day of the week. It’s less likely to have QC issues, though both would probably be fine. 

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Leicalott said:

 

What I’m trying to determine is whether the Leicas of old were only made a certain way because that’s the technology they had at the time, or whether they are made a different way now because capitalism etc.. has changed the way we work?

They may have been made a different way using slightly different materials but to correct your rose tinted colour balance the result was the same, you either got a reliable camera or one made on a Friday afternoon by somebody with other things on their minds. The reason Leica's have never come off the production line in serial number sequence is because they have to go back and forth for rectification, then and now. Leica M2's weren't immune to faults as you imply, and to put it into a different kind of perspective people were far more tolerant of things breaking down in the 50s and 60s because everything except fridges broke down. Cars weren't built by robots back then and they broke down far, far more frequently because people built them. And within the same timeframe if you were looking for a well built, beautifully engineered, and reliable camera Nikon would be the choice.

As for the argument about materials, which is harder wearing, brass or steel? Leica changed to steel gears to withstand the torque of motor drives and while these aren't a thing with Leica any more why would you go back to brass?

So this era when everything was rosy with Leica cameras never really existed, it's been dreamt up by people who don't want to own a camera so much as build a sentimental mythology around it. If you need a rangefinder an M2 or an MP are both fine cameras, but beware of anybody trying to sell you one as a totemic symbol.

[jakontil]

I agree with some comments here being MP is the preferred choice for its reliability, despite the older models came with brass and in high precision made 

i have m2-r in black repainted, overhauled, M6 TTL dragon and MP black paint, the former are used when im taking my time on a sunny day, strolling in the morning and afternoon with coffee in between, admiring those craftsmanships while the MP is for more serious works when error of tolerance is minimal, like focusing and  exposure is more essential, that being said im lucky to own those, and if i were to pick one, probably the MP 

[a.noctilux]

As said, if photographing is important, each Leica M would do.

With same lens, I hardly "know" which Leica M I  use.

I use and still use M2 from time to time.

I've owned MP many times, and traded them so now zero MP but other Ms.

MP is great when I needed 0.85 VF, but M6 Classic 0.85 which replaced the MP 0.85 is more comfort for me, I know the flarey M6's VF but this doen't bother me.

 

Happily we are all  different with different taste and expectation.

I do know that every Leica M is great for photographing with M mindset, but neither M I own/use is the only one to own.

 

Sorry to say that if the bug hit the second Leica M is something quite natural.

Some M4-2 lovers, https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182819-i-love-my-m4-2/

we can see the M4-2 as M-A (to simplify things) modern lovers, https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/236926-i-love-my-m-a/

Edited August 26 by a.noctilux

[a.noctilux]

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/48604-i-love-my-m2/

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267593-i-love-my-mp/

 

just to be more practical,

I returned these days to my first love M4

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/141350-i-love-my-m4/

 

 

Edited August 26 by a.noctilux

[Mute-on]

I have both M2 and early MP.  The choice has more to do with whether you prefer the convenience of an internal light meter and rapid loading than the build differences between the cameras. Having said that, in my experience the M2 is just a little smoother and more “dense” feeling than the MP. Regardless, I tend to prefer the MP for its convenience in use (not to mention the 0.58 VF).

A Kanto overhauled M2 will be as close to new internally as it is possible to make. It will most likely have new curtains, seals, and as you have stated, an M6 viewfinder. If it was my money, I’d be buying the Kanto M2. If you really want an MP, find an early one and then get Kanto to overhaul that. 

Edited August 26 by Mute-on

[Bronco McBeast]

1 hour ago, Mute-on said:If you really want an MP, find an early one and then get Kanto to overhaul that. 

What’s special about an early MP with a overhaul versus a Brand new MP? 

[Mute-on]

5 minutes ago, Bronco McBeast said:

What’s special about an early MP with an overhaul versus a Brand new MP? 

I have a completely unproven theory that the early MPs were made slightly better, at least at a time when Leica was predominantly a film camera company, and most of the film camera manufacturing experience was still retained. I would still buy an early MP and have it overhauled. I am aware that most would probably buy new and assume it was the peak of what Leica is capable of producing. I just don’t subscribe to that assumption in relation to film cameras …. 

[Bronco McBeast]

24 minutes ago, Mute-on said:

I have a completely unproven theory that the early MPs were made slightly better, at least at a time when Leica was predominantly a film camera company, and most of the film camera manufacturing experience was still retained. I would still buy an early MP and have it overhauled. I am aware that most would probably buy new and assume it was the peak of what Leica is capable of producing. I just don’t subscribe to that assumption in relation to film cameras …. 

PURE internet myth that gets transformed as “knowledge”.

The thing is, back when the MP was issued, it was seen as merely a M6 in disguise. It was HIGHLY criticized, and seen as a very poor M camera compared to the original M3-M2-M4.

The very early MP were iffy. The actually WERE M6 in disguise.

The latter ones, had new electronics, but were still iffy-ish. My 293xx went in for repair multiple times: bad frame counter, the shtter cloth simply unhooked. The condenser went loose inside the vf... when Sent in for the first time to DAG back around 2010 (for the loose shutter, curtain) his repair note stated “they don’t make them as they used to”. 

To be sure, nothing will ever best the original M3-2-4-5. Nothing. They are simply from a time with a different approach, mentality, standard, philosophy.

However, as brand new MP go. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy the latest. They are equal or Better than the early ones, for sure.

... You just had to be there.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[williamj]

14 hours ago, Leicalott said:

Hi Leica world!

I’m tossing up between purchasing a Kanto overhauled M2 black repaint, with updated M6 viewfinder (which looks beautiful), or a brand new MP.

I have two broad questions: I understand that the Leicas of old were made with the ‘fit and finish’ approach, including brass gears. Whenever I hear technicians speak about the older Leicas, they say that they’re just on a different level compared to newer Leicas. So, my first question is, what are they actually referring to? If I was to pull each one apart and look inside, what would I see as different?

and secondly, given the M2 has 60+ years on it, will the internal gears, no matter how premium, die much sooner than a brand new Leica? Or will they continue on for as long as they are serviced?

Thank you for indulging me!

NB. These two cameras are also the same in price.

Hi. People are dancing around this question because a camera is a light tight box with a shutter and the shutter on the M camera is the same as that in the Red Dial Leica IIIf so an M is an M. Note that on the M2 intermediate shutter speeds can be chosen, not only those marked on the dial, but this is not possible on the modern cameras like the MP.

However, there are some facts that directly address your comparison of an M2 vs an MP and their internal workings.

1. Modern parts are made with higher precision than in the past, so modern cameras can have their internals replaced with less concern. If you compare modern firearms to firearms made in the early 19th century you have the same issue. Brass vs steel each have their advantages and disadvantages and it is a wash. However, to my knowledge, brass mechanical parts are no longer made and some replacement parts come from dead cameras.

2. The M2 has a simpler and more robust exposure counter with less to go wrong made specifically for photojournalists and that was also used in the original MP cameras. The M2 has fewer parts than the MP.

3. An original M2 viewfinder has Canada Balsam in it which can cause parts of the viewfinder to fail over time, the one on offer is an M6 which doesn't have Canada Balsam so that's OK, your framelines are safe, but it can flare, a problem only finally rectified in the MP.

The rest is my opinion and may be controversial. A repainted M2 with a replacement M6 viewfinder in my opinion was not a camera in original excellent condition. No one would do that. It may have had a dull or defunct viewfinder, it may have had problems with the vulcanite and potentially issues with the chrome. The shutter may have needed reworking. It was rescued and made beautiful again and if Kanto have checked it over or rebuilt it it will give you decades of excellent service. The MP will be a lot newer and will give you decades of excellent service but you may not believe the quality assurance signatures provided. It will come with a warranty which Leica will honour.