Ordering Leica MP

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by mafoofan, Aug 19, 2011.

  1. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    So, I think I'll be ordering a Leica MP soon, for delivery some time before the end of the year. It's going to have a black paint finish (as opposed to chrome, or black anodized chrome) and vulkanite covering. Something like this:

    [​IMG]

    The only real difference is that the covering on the above camera is a smoother material than vulkanite. Vulkanite is slightly shinier, and has a big, pebbled grain.

    The key decision I'm facing is how to have the top of the camera engraved. The standard for the model is this:

    [​IMG]

    However, you can also have the camera engraved like this:

    [​IMG]

    The latter resembles the way Leica has traditionally engraved their cameras, going at least as far back as the M3 in the 50's. However, it is also less minimalistic, and hence arguably less in keeping with the camera's overall design and function.

    For further context:

    [​IMG]

    Torn. Thoughts? Both camera/Leica junkie and non-junkie opinions desired.
     
  2. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    What, nobody here likes cameras or Asian people?
     
  3. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Likes Received:
    97
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    Why do you want an MP instead of an M9-P?
     
  4. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    Want film, not digital. Anyway, the "P" in "MP" actually means something. The M9-P is just an M9 styled to look like an MP, with a sapphire LCD screen. It is no more durable or better made than a regular M9.
     
  5. poorsod

    poorsod Senior member

    Messages:
    4,059
    Likes Received:
    756
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    

    I like the traditional look - seems more prototypical German for some reason.

    I understand you enjoy the romance of film. But I've realized that I have neither the time nor innate skill to become good at film photography. Digital is easier, especially if I had your Photoshop skillz.
     
  6. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    I'm not sure how much more skill one really needs for film. I figure if I want to take this hobby seriously, I can't depend on taking thousands of shots on a digital camera in hopes that only one turns out right.

    Also, film looks different. The images appear more natural to my eye.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2011
  7. poorsod

    poorsod Senior member

    Messages:
    4,059
    Likes Received:
    756
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    

    I like the instant feedback of digital. That's how I learn. I forget what I did to compose the shot if I have to wait to develop the film. I ain't no Cartier-Bresson.
     
  8. aj_del

    aj_del Senior member

    Messages:
    6,964
    Likes Received:
    126
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Are you asking about the engraving ? How does it matter ?

    I am kind of surprised that a minor engraving is troubling you of all people
     
  9. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    
    Maybe I will regret the choice, but I used to shoot film in high school and college. I enjoyed the discipline enforced by the process, but more importantly, I think the images are both more natural and beautiful at the same time. A sensor and film don't capture light the same way.
    It's no different from pondering how wide to make your trouser cuffs. I'm constantly surprised by how much members attend to their clothes while entirely neglecting the other objects around them. Anyway, a camera like this is a hell of a lot more costly and permanent than any item of bespoke clothing one might wear.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2011
  10. pfurey

    pfurey Senior member

    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Philly
    If you're good at processing, you can get digital to look like film with a lot less effort than actual film. There is something to be said for having film "slow you down" but even an m9 will slow the process considerably.

    I'd get an m9 and throw a 35 on front and be done with it.
     
  11. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    I have to disagree. You may be able to approximate the grain of film, but that's not really what I care about. Lighting looks different on film--to my mind, more like what the eye sees.

    Also, film has more longevity as a source medium. You can always go back to the negative and re-scan, as scanning technology improves. On the other hand, who knows how easy or hard it will be to work with digital image files 10-20 years from now.
     
  12. imageWIS

    imageWIS Senior member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Likes Received:
    97
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    

    How will you develop the film? How about prints?
     
  13. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    I can develop B&W easily enough at home, and I can learn to process color, or send it out to a lab. I have a Nikon 5000ED dedicated 35mm scanner to scan the negatives.
     
  14. pfurey

    pfurey Senior member

    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Philly
    

    Photography isn't my hobby, it's my career. That said, take the advice with a grain of salt...

    Lighting most likely looks better to you because most film is warmer than the relatively color neutral digital files. And because most film shooters don't develop their own negs, they're oblivious to the process of darkroom processing. A digital file processed properly can and will look exactly like it's digital 35mm equivalent. Medium format film is a different beast.

    The longevity is a moot point. A RAW file will always be a RAW file, even if the technology changes (which it will), someone will develop a means to convert said files when the time comes. They're still relatively lossless.
     
  15. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,797
    Likes Received:
    2,028
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    

    I've followed the endless debate on this subject and came to my own conclusions based on what I've seen for myself. I have no interest in spending thousands on a digital camera and I prefer to use film because I think it yields potentially better results. Yet, none of this is relevant to why I started this thread.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by