MP History

[luis_rives]

The original MP produced between 1955 and 1957, of which only approx 400 copies were made: what was the purpose

for Leitz building this camera? If it was for journalists, it does not make sense because why stop at only so

few copies after such a short period of time. Are there any internal construction differences between this MP

and the M3, other than the frame counter? If it was built for so called "professional" use how was it more

rugged than the M3? Have not been able to find this info anywhere. By the way for the 1% members of this forum,

there is currently an original MP in the infamous auction site so far at 45K, but hurry before the gavel drops.

[john tonai]

<p>Google helps</p>

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M3/Leica-MP/index.htm</p>

[luis_rives]

John, I have seen that page previously and the differences mentioned are related to the use of the Leicavit, but I am interested in differences that suggest the MP was built for more rugged use than the M3. In addition, the page makes no mention of why Leica built the MP or why it was stopped never to return again, until its later incarnation almost 50 years later.

[furcafe]

<p>I can think of a bunch of reasons: (1) there aren't that many journalists so the market was never that big; (2) they realized it was easier to modify an existing M3 or, later, M2 for any remaining journalists than to make a special model; & (3) the M2 became the de facto MP for many journalists after the introduction of the Nikon F (SLRs being easier to use for telephoto).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If it was for journalists, it does not make sense because why stop at only so few copies after such a short period of time.</p>

</blockquote>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Luis, many makers have made their professional models more rugged than their other models, but I do not think that Leitz had that in mind when they made the original MP. Other than its brass gears, the M3 was quite rugged enough. What you call the "later incarnation" of the MP brought back nothing but the model designation.</p>

[luis_rives]

<p>"....the "later incarnation" of the MP brought back nothing but the model designation."</p>

<p>Mukul, At the time the MP was re-introduced I believe that the current model was the M6. The MP did have some notable differences, brass top and bottom panels unlike the aluminum alloy of the M6, classic black paint vs. the utilitarian black chrome of the M6, a non-flare rangefinder unlike the M6, and some internal construction differences to make the MP a somewhat more rugged camera than the M6 (this has been documented in this forum in another thread complete with photos, but I searched and could not find it). So to say that the MP when introduced was nothing more than a model redesignation is not entirely accurate.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Luis, I confess to being an old fellow who holds the differences not to be notable but cosmetic.</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Rudy Lingg, the best Leica repairman on the West Coast mentioned that the MP was built because some important photojournalists (to Leica) complained because they would strip/damage the drive mechanism when they used their Leicavit. The change to hardened steel was to solve this problem. The advance wasn't as smooth, but it was extremely durable.<br>

They also changed the film counter to the one that was later found on the M2 because the M3 counter could jam if there was impact to that corner of the camera. The M2/MP counter could be flattened out and would keep working.<br>

Removing the self timer eliminated one feature that just wasn't used by photojournalists and was something that could get caught on something and broken</p>

[rgerraty]

<p>Gus Lazzari who repairs cameras, posted here months ago showing some of the differences in the internal components of the MP and the M6. See first this:<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00YKu9<br>

And more to the point this:<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00YCsA</p>