Some comments on the MP

[douglas_green1]

If the MP's paint finish won't wear off easily even under pro use, how did Erwin Puts manage to wear through it in A FEW DAYS?

[jim_a]

Here's what Erwin wrote:<P>

 

"The black paint (laquer) version looks beautiful and inspires the user to strive for the best possible photography. The black paint is meant to wear and so to give the camera a worn look. My version already showed some wear after some days. The MP is evidently a camera you buy and will never sell, because it becomes a tool with a history tightly coupled to its original buyer."<P>

 

I don't read this as he "wore through" the finish.

[douglas_green1]

OK, If the MP's paint finish won't wear off easily even under pro use, how did Erwin Puts manage to cause visible wear on it in just some DAYS of use?

[steve_barnett2]

Douglas was Erwin's a brand new camera? Or rather from a Press/Test batch. He did have to give it back. As for him using the word 'lacquer', I think he was wrong to do so. 'Lacquer' is the traditional term for pre war black Leica's that had a very fragile and easily chipped finish, introduced becuse it was cheaper to manufacture. Even the early black M3's had a more robust finish than that, although in terms of materials technology it may still be appropriate to call it 'lacquer'. If you seriously believe that the finish on the MP is a recreation of the early 'lacquer' finish you are barking up the wrong tree.

[douglas_green1]

No Steve, I simply believe that no less a-Pro Leica authority than Erwin Puts OBSERVED VISIBLE WEAR TO THE SURFACE OF THE MP HE TESTED, IN JUST THE MERE DAYS THAT HE POSSESSED THE CAMERA. Why do I believe this? BECAUSE HE SAID SO, and his job is to make and report his observations about the camera he tested. And, if anything, Erwin's bias would tend to be pro Leica, which, while probably not reflected in his actual observation, was CLEARLY reflected in his attempt to put a positive spin on the wear to the finish that he clearly observed.

 

I don't have ANY specific knowledge about the type of black paint finish that was used, but I DO have the report of an either objective or Pro-Leica observer, who known to be rigorous in his observations, stating clear as day that VISIBLE WEAR happened to the surface of the MP he was testing, in ONLY A MATTER OF DAYS. That is, in and of itself, ASTONISHING, and prima facie evidence that at least the particuler sample Erwin tested, which was NOT claimed to be anything other than a fair representative of the production units, is finished with a paint that is NOT DURABLE. QED.

[kevin m.]

Douglas: Steve owns the MP, so if I were in his shoes, I would believe my own eyes rather than second hand information no matter how trusted the source. I heard all sorts of anti-Hexar info on this forum that frankly evaporated once I actually handled the camera myself.

 

I think the best way to make use of second hand information is to know the biases of your source and proceed accordingly.

[tommy_baker]

I think thats the best bit of Leica dribble I have heard from PUTTS for a while. Just swimming in butt kissing butter [no pun intended]. Now as for production values, at a price premium that is tagged for the new MP's Leica should be delivering Total Quality from start to finish. And if the paint wears off in a few days or weeks, then I think thats a joke. And if so, we are just bending over with our money for another royal Leica shaft.

[charlesk]

Dear Steve,

<br>I noticed your comment regarding the MP finish in the other thread, also. I believe this is an important point.

<br>First of all, I never said that lacquer is <i>easily</i> scratched. It is not. Lacquer provides the hardest of all natural finishes, but it is not indestructable, and will scratch under certain, normal conditions. Again, it's advantage is that minor scratches can be buffed-out.

<br>I have done a little Web Searching, and 90% of the sites describe this camera as being finished "in lacquer." A few sites describe it as "paint." The term "paint" is merely a catch-all which can indicate almost any type of finish.

<br>Old black cameras are finished in black "baked enamel."

<br>Here, you have the "lusterous look" in a nice thick coating.

<br>But, enamel chips.

<br>If you think it is a "modern high-tech paint," then, you've got to put your cards on the table. Is it single-part epoxy? Urethane? Acrylic polymer?

<br>These are very tough finishes, but they have a "plastic" look to them, hence, they are avoided for finishing "art" items like expensive cameras.

<br>These modern synthetic finishes, because of necessary catalysts, etc., are very difficult to thin-out, and so, are applied with a certain thickness. Again, advantage: lacquer, which can be applied with the consistency of water if need be. This is important when finishing <i>an engraved surface,</i> such as a Leica. The thick modern finishes will fill-in the engravings--the lacquer will not.

<br>But, if you're going to apply a thin coat of lacquer, then the object cannot sustain any handling whatsoever, so, we're back to square one.

<br>The decision to use lacquer in this application was to achieve the "ultimate" in fine finishes--which it is. In terms of aesthetics, it IS the finer "no compromise" finish. But, where baked enamel is lovely--just don't bang it, thin lacquer is lovely, too--just don't rub it a lot.

[Spearhead]

<i>"The black paint (laquer) version looks beautiful and inspires the user to strive for the best possible photography."</i><p>

 

That's it, I'm off to Home Depot for some black paint for all my cameras so I can be inspired. I think I'll coat myself with the paint too, that will probably inspire me even more. Maybe I'll paint my studio the same. I can use the inspiration.

[tommy_baker]

that's In-Spirer-ed stuff Jeff.

[doug_hagerman]

I scratched the battery cover on my new M6TTL down to the metal--just in one tiny spot on the edge--when I first opened it to put in the battery. I think the whole paint thing is ridiculous.

 

WHY ARE WE SUCH WIMPS? Punk high school kids take their junky old Hondas and completely rebuild them to meet their appearance desires; why can't a bunch of old farts (who else would use a Leica?) be brave enough to do the same? I want to see a camera where somebody has drilled holes in the body (for some useful reason) or fabricated a recording back plate or ripped off the collapsable lens hood. (Ok, well, that's been done.)

[charlesk]

Chrome is still the best finish.

<br>Black paint only if you're in the Luftwaffe or the Gestapo.

[mike dixon]

<I>"The black paint (laquer) version looks beautiful and inspires

the user to strive for the best possible photography."</i><P>

Hmmm, is he talking about pictures taken <i>with</i> the

camera or pictures taken <i>of</i> the camera. Seems sensible

enough if you're taking shots of the camera . . .

[steve_barnett2]

Charles, I refer you to a few threads above. But here goes again. You have developed a fine theory without testing any of its parameters for accuracy. The word 'lackiert' in German means coated. Schwarz Lackiert, black coated. On continental Europe the word 'lacquer' is used as a generic term for coated or painted. But in the UK lacquer is either a clear coat like varnish, or an antique process. But in the end I refer you to the box my MP came in. Here is how it describes the contents. Remember, this is from the box - schwarz lackiert/black paint/laque noir. Did you spot the difference?

[charlesk]

Steve, I responded to your comment in the other thread, too.

<br>Just because the term "lacquer" derives from "black paint," does not mean that everything painted black is "lacquered" (in formal logic, this is known as an improper conversion of "<i>A</i> Proposition," if memory serves me correct.)

<br>Manufacturers have tried to confuse consumers by selling items with a "lacquer-like" finish and the product known as "acrylic lacquer" is NOT lacquer, but acrylic paint.

<br>Over the years, the "-like" section of the term was sometimes dropped and the term "lacquer finish" was/is used to denote a finish which <i>looks like</i> lacquer.

<br>This is simply consumer fraud, and high-end items like Steinway pianos which are tauted as "lacquered" are never, NEVER painted in acrylic and then sold with a "lacquer finish."

<br>If Leica is indeed finishing their MP in acrylic paint (or epoxy,) then this is just crass consumeristic jargon meant to mislead gullible buyers.

[charlesk]

<i>But in the UK lacquer is either a clear coat like varnish...</i>

<p>Again, you're betraying an obvious unfamiliarity with these materials. Lacquer, as it comes naturally, <b>is</b> clear. By adding pigments you change it to any color you want.

<br>This is the same in USA, UK, or Taiwan.

<br>The Brits are not using the term any differently than we do.

<br>It is "like varnish" only in that it is a clear finish (in this application.) The only difference is that pigmented varnish is called "oil-based paint," and pigmented lacquer is called, "lacquer," (and pigmented shellac is called, "pigmented shellac.")

<br>The Japanese invented the stuff, btw, and the history of the development of lacquer has nothing to do with Germany.

[steve_barnett2]

"If Leica is indeed finishing their MP in acrylic paint (or epoxy,) then this is just crass consumeristic jargon meant to mislead gullible buyers."

 

So, now you tell other countries how to speak and use their own language. Where does your arrogance end? The awful thing is that these posts are archived, and your utter disdain for other languages is heading for a fall. You do not have an MP. You have never seen an MP. And yet you are an expert in the finish, based on a non-contextual translation! Your fall? More people are buying them. Come back in six months time with your stupid arrogant comments and see what the response is. Maybe by then you will have actually held one?

[charlesk]

Ahhhhh..... the I-Have-a-Leica-and-You-Don't argument.

<br>Do you own a Leica "Squadron" jacket, too? lol

[charlesk]

<br>1) It looks like lacquer

<br>2) It's called "lacquer" by the manufacturer

<br>3) It wears like lacquer (HINT: this is important!)

<br>Question: <i>What could it be?</i>

<br>.

<br>.

<br>Time's up....

<br>It's <i>LACQUER</i>

<br>Wow... wasn't <i>that</i> a surprise?

[__jon__]

Ah, the Leica freak show continues...

[Allen Herbert]

A Banana Skin?