Internal differences between M2 and MP

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll tell only my experiences of decades old Leica M user, with most of models comprise MDa.

As user, I trust on reliability of Leica M.

When in use, old/battered Leica Ms are so smooth and pleasurable in use.

We are lucky to have such imperial choices.

 

So M2 is great for smoothness, I have one with more than 100 k clics( I  think, M2 bought from professional portrait photographer ) M4 viewfinder-28mm aux. VF glued on the cold shoe-covered with black tape-shutter button showing brass ! Needless to say that M2 had been more than once CLAed when the photographer used it.

This highest smoothness I never found in more modern M (comprise M3/4/MP/M-A).

In my multiple M4, the one that is the most used is the smoothest in wind/release/rewind.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour 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 …. 

I bought my MP new in 2003 (with the M6 ISO wheel) and the first trip I took with it, there was a shutter curtain failure that ruined two rolls. It was rougher than both my dad's M6 (albeit used for hundreds of rolls) and the M7 a la carte I subsequently purchased. The only Leica I have had that did not have an error of some kind was/is the SL2. I have been using them professionally for at least ten years, and non-professionally for ten before that.

All that said, I think I would get the MP, because fiddling with the spool and having to carry an incident meter (or not having accurate exposures) is a pain. You have to decide what the purpose of the camera is for you...is it the joy of handling a historical object? Or is the joy of using a functional object? If it is the former, then get the M2, if it is the latter, get the MP.

I had a similar conundrum once when I inherited a watch from my father. It stopped working and the company said that to properly fix it they needed to replace the casing, but that they would replicate the engravings and so forth. But was a watch with a new case and new gears, springs, dial etc...was that still my father's watch? My friend did his PhD in philosophy and told me about the problem of the Ship of Theseus. It is a great rabbit hole to go down. In the end I took the example of Japanese shrines and temples, where the philosophy is not to freeze a building in time as they crumble, like we sometimes do in the west (think Greek and Roman antiquities, for example). The history is in the place and the events, not in the structure, so they continuously rebuild the temples and shrines and they are still considered the same historical structures.

Long story short, this is a philosophical question that can only really be answered by you and your preferences, not by us.

[Bronco McBeast]

36 minutes ago, williamj said:

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.

 

Sure, intermediate speeds can be chosen on the new MP.

 

As far as Brass vs steel gears, it’s a matter of wether a person uses a motorwinder. Brass gears are so smooth, steel gears are more brutal abd dry in feel.

[TomB_tx]

31 minutes ago, williamj said:

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.

This is the main reason people rave about the precision of old Leicas - the assembler selected and custom-fitted (modified) parts to get the best internal fit. They had to because the looser tolerances of the parts then wouldn't provide a consistent, precision operation without such hand work on assembly. Erwin Puts noted in the "Leica Chronicle" that the later Leica models could be considered "more precise" because the tighter tolerances on parts made for more consistent assembly without so much hand fitting. When western manufacturers toured Leica after WWII they were put off by the amount of hand work necessary to build the cameras. The English, US, and Japanese copies of the III tried to tighten the parts tolerances to get easier assembly. When I had a technician service my Tanack IV he noted internally it was very similar to the Leica IIIf, but "built better."  (I still prefer the IIIf.)

I've used Leica since the 1960s and have models M2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and the 6 is the one I shoot most now. (I did have the finder upgraded to eliminate the flare issue, after using it for 30 years without problems.) I find as much variation in "feel" between different samples of the same model as between the M2 & M6. My 1960 M3 does feel a bit smoother on winding, but it's also had the most use over the years to "wear-in".

I have no complaints on the quality of any of my modern Leicas: M2, 3, 4, 5, 6, film CL. 9, & 10, plus Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, SL2. My R4 serviced me fine many years until the common electronics issues started. My R6 and R8 have been fine. I don't have any of the new M models (yet) - but if they do make a chrome new M6...

 

[spydrxx]

I think you would be happy with either...the question, as I see it, is whether a repaint oldie or factory paint modern is the better buy. Only you can make that decision. Other commenters have provided you with fodder to help you arrive at a decision. If it was me, having owned an M2, M4, M6 and a bunch of Barnacks, I'd probably choose the MP for the reasons others have stated. I currently have a lovely smooth M2...but if I could choose between it and a more modern MP, I'd go for the MP! Best of luck in your decision...if you can try both out to help in your choice, do so...you'll feel more secure in your ultimate decision.

[andrew01]

I have an M3 and M6. Love them both.  The M3 is like a Rolex, just wonderfully smooth.  I think every Leica enthusiast should experience a Wetzlar M Leica.  The M6 is also very very nice, but the smoothness and premium feel is only about 95% as nice as the M3.

If buying a Wetzlar camera I would personally not bother with a repaint, just get a nice chrome model from a reputable Leica dealer for around 900-1200 €/£/$.  If you can, go to a dealer try a few different cameras and choose the one that feels the smoothest.  They vary depending on how they have been treated and serviced over the last 60 years.

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, andrew01 said:

The M6 is also very very nice, but the smoothness and premium feel is only about 95% as nice as the M3.

Seriously? 

I currently own an M2, M4 and M-A.  If by 'smoothness' everyone is referring to the feel of the film advance and rewind knob (what else is there?), then I'd have to give the nod to the M-A.  But they all feel just fine to me and my focus is on the actual picture-taking process (light, composition, finding something interesting enough to shoot) than camera 'smoothness' .  If the film advances and rewinds properly then that's good enough for me.

If I were in the OP's shoes, I'd buy a new MP.  If you must have a vintage camera, then find a nice M2/M3/M4 depending on the focal lengths you prefer to use.  If they're all in proper working order, then there isn't much else between them.

Edited August 26, 2023 by logan2z

[LocalHero1953]

I had a M2 for many years; now I have a M4 and a new black paint MP. I like all three - they all do different things, but they are all film Leicas so the image is determined more by the film and the attached lens than the differences between the bodies. Pick the body for the pleasure of photographing, not for the actual photograph.

The M2 is limited if you want longer lenses (I didn't - I sold a M3 to buy my M2). The exposure counter irritated me - it was always wrong. I wouldn't touch a repainted M2 - I would always be thinking of it as a patched up fake.

The M4 has smooth brass gears, and (IMO) is the classic M, as long as you're happy with the cranked wind-on lever and angled rewind knob (they don't worry me).

The MP in black paint is the real deal in the hand - it just feels right. And it has an exposure meter. I admit to being shallow enough to like it. (I know that makes me not a proper Leica Man).

[andrew01]

3 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Seriously? 

I currently own an M2, M4 and M-A.  If by 'smoothness' everyone is referring to the feel of the film advance and rewind knob (what else is there?), then I'd have to give the nod to the M-A.  But they all feel just fine to me and my focus is on the actual picture-taking process (light, composition, finding something interesting enough to shoot) than camera 'smoothness' .  If the film advances and rewinds properly then that's good enough for me.

If I were in the OP's shoes, I'd buy a new MP.  If you must have a vintage camera, then find a nice chrome M2/M3/M4 depending on the focal lengths you prefer to use.  If they're all in proper working order, then there isn't much else between them.

There’s not much in it and these are all VERY nice cameras.  Sample variation is also a factor too.  However for me there is something special about my M3.  The M2 and M3 are bargains at the going rate now, provided you shop carefully from a reputable dealer.

[logan2z]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The MP in black paint is the real deal in the hand - it just feels right. And it has an exposure meter.

The meter is the only thing that stops me from buying one.  

[raizans]

Splitting hairs is understandable when you’re shopping for expensive things, but at that point everything is excellent and tiny differences are passionately construed as dealbreakers and offenses to core values.

[pippy]

10 minutes ago, logan2z said:

The meter is the only thing that stops me from buying one.  

Why?

P.

[madNbad]

22 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The exposure counter irritated me - it was always wrong.

If you move the advance lever to the half cock position, it unlocks the counter wheel.

[earleygallery]

If you can afford a new MP buy a new MP, not some franknenleica that may or may not require further work.

If you prefer the M2 buy a mint M2 for about a 1/5 of the price.

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, madNbad said:

If you move the advance lever to the half cock position, it unlocks the counter wheel.

Well, I no longer have it, but IIRC it was too easy to nudge to a different position. Or was it that you had to manually zero it? Whatever it was, human error on my part meant it was wrong most of the time.

[earleygallery]

3 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Well, I no longer have it, but IIRC it was too easy to nudge to a different position. Or was it that you had to manually zero it? Whatever it was, human error on my part meant it was wrong most of the time.

Not easy to nudge unless you had a very loose one, but yes I often forget to reset to 0!

[madNbad]

This makes for interesting reading but we should all thank the members of the Leica Historical Society. They were the ones who pushed Leica to bring back the brass top plate and real black paint. I owned a M6 TTL Millennium and it was by far the most beautiful camera I ever owned. When they sold quickly, Leica saw a new revenue path. Without the efforts of LHS, I doubt if we would have the MP.

[madNbad]

It’s a fun discussion, maybe the OP will check it with a comment or two.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[madNbad]

6 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

Not easy to nudge unless you had a very loose one, but yes I often forget to reset to 0!

Many times the counter was at 20 when the advance lever told me it was the end of the roll.

[pippy]

3 minutes ago, madNbad said:

Many times the counter was at 20 when the advance lever told me it was the end of the roll.

Was that back in the days when film could be bought in 20 exposure rolls?............

I'm another who often forgot to manually-reset the counter of my M2. This usually only happened when I was out'n'about and had changed a roll part-way through the day. It is possible to have a very rough idea of which frame one is on because beyond frame 36 the frame-counter dial of the M2 goes up to c. 40.

Therefore if a 36 exp. roll has been finished and the frame-counter has not been zero'd by the time the 'new roll' has been wound past the leader the dial wouold be up to c. 39. In such a manner the indicated frame number will be only one or two behind the actual frame on the roll. It's more confusing, obviously, if a 20 or 24 (or even 12!) exposure roll had been shot first but Sums still comes to one's aid!

Personally speaking, although I love my M2 dearly, if it came down to a choice between an M2 and a Black-Paint MP there really isn't (IMO) a contest; the MP would win hands-down. There's nothing (IMO) about the M2 which is superior with the possible exception of the material used for a few of the internal components and having a built-in TTL meter system is FAR superior than not having such a feature.

Philip.