A Street Nikon SLR?

CGW said:

This might work if your subjects are mailboxes or fire plugs but not people moving in and out of widely varying light. That's the advantage of late 35 AF film bodies and their sophisticated matrix meters, not to mention built-in spot/flash metering capability. Incident metering for medium format, sure, but not 35mm when dorking around with incident readings is rarely practical or even possible.

Click to expand...

Where is this "widely varying light"? Are you shooting at a circus? If you are out in the street a meter reading in the sun and one in the shade is probably all you need to give you a good idea where you need to set your exposure.

You also greatly exaggerate the extra time that an incident reading takes. You give the impression that you think a reading needs to be taken before every shot. If you are taking a reading before every exposure then you are doing it wrong.

LudditeJay said:

Where is this "widely varying light"? Are you shooting at a circus? If you are out in the street a meter reading in the sun and one in the shade is probably all you need to give you a good idea where you need to set your exposure.

You also greatly exaggerate the extra time that an incident reading takes. You give the impression that you think a reading needs to be taken before every shot. If you are taking a reading before every exposure then you are doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

My subjects aren't always stationary and neither am I. Besides, why guess about exposure if the tools to nail it, in camera, are readily available with metered 35mm cameras? I'll fuss with incident readings when I'm shooting medium format but with 35mm, it's unnecessary and often a hindrance. My keeper quotient certainly doesn't suffer, either. Why guesstimate exposure with the old hi/lo approach?

While I'm waiting, can someone explain this whole "matrix metering" thing to me?

CGW said:

My subjects aren't always stationary and neither am I. Besides, why guess about exposure if the tools to nail it, in camera, are readily available with metered 35mm cameras? I'll fuss with incident readings when I'm shooting medium format but with 35mm, it's unnecessary and often a hindrance. My keeper quotient certainly doesn't suffer, either. Why guesstimate exposure with the old hi/lo approach?

Click to expand...

I totally understand where you are coming from and ultimately a person will use what they prefer. I have owned an F, an FE2, an F3, and an F5. I also thought that the matrix metering on the F5 did a pretty damn good job. I no longer own any of those cameras and now use a Bessa R3m.

You view taking an incident reading as a hindrance while I view it as freedom from guessing at what the camera will do. If I set the shutter speed and aperture myself then I have complete creative control and experience gives me a fantastic forethought as to what to expect with each frame.

The fact that you and your subjects aren't stationary makes incident readings great. You commit to a shutter/aperture combination and you get to focus on what is important, your composition. Are you going to "nail it" every time? No, but neither is the 60/40 center-weighted meter in the FE2 and I would argue that the FE2 is going to be wrong more than the incident meter and your brain. The F3 is an 80/20 split.

The OP was asking for opinion about the FE2 and F3 for street use. I was offering a suggestion to make the choice not worrying so much about the in-camera meter because in my opinion she/he would be better with a tiny meter like the digisix. If I had to pick one to use for street and use the in-camera metering it would be the FE2. Smaller, and the meter is easier to read quickly.

Yeknom, check out this link to read about different metering modes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_mode

(For future reference, I'm a "he")

I've thrown out the possibility of an F3, but have substituted it with the possibility of an FA. I would have to stick to AI-S lenses, but that matrix metering looks really nifty, and it lets me choose between shutter/aperture priority, both of which could come in handy. Not really sure why it costs less than an FE2. It doesn't feature a needle-based meter, but maybe I wouldn't mind it as much as I think.

Anyone have any bad experiences with the FA?

Regarding the FA, a friend of mine has two. They are both dead,and no repair parts are available..
I really think the FE2 is the camera you need - and if you need more "heft" the MD-12 motor is a nice addition -you can still manually wind if you don't want the noise..

What was wrong with the Canon FD system? What didn't you like about it? Nikon's F system won't give you anything of import that Canon's FD system will not, and FD stuff is cheaper (and not for reasons of quality).

So, what I would really have done is to stick with FD. They are great, and very affordable, but most importantly, you already have one.

But since it is too late for that, I'd get any one of a number of great Nikons. F, F2, and Nikkormat would be my first "go-to" cameras; and an incident meter. But something lighter and cheaper along the lines of a Canon AE-1 would work well too.

CGW said:

"For street-shooting I don't know if it is all that important to even bother with in-camera metering or use it as a major factor in the purchase of a camera for the purpose. I would probably just take an incident reading and use that to decide my exposure. I would take readings each time I felt that the light had changed enough to warrant it."


This might work if your subjects are mailboxes or fire plugs but not people moving in and out of widely varying light. That's the advantage of late 35 AF film bodies and their sophisticated matrix meters, not to mention built-in spot/flash metering capability. Incident metering for medium format, sure, but not 35mm when dorking around with incident readings is rarely practical or even possible.

Click to expand...

One does not need to meter every shot just because he/she is using an incident meter. You meter before shots even come up. There are not all that many possibilities when working on the street. An exposure for the open areas. An exposure for open shade. An exposure for deep shade. Exposures that are compromises between any two of these three. One of those four is what you will use almost all of the time when shooting on the street. Take three or four meter readings ahead of time, and then put the meter in your pocket. Then change you camera settings as you walk into and out of similar light.

No in-camera meter, no matter how modern, is going to be able to match the results from an incident meter, in almost any situation. That is simply due to how reflected meters do what they do; that is, they base their readings solely on the composition. They have you changing exposure shot to shot when you really shouldn't be, simply because the arrangement of tones in the compositions changes (though the main source of light does not.) Not only that, but street shooting can be some of the most difficult lighting for an in-camera meter to nail properly, due to exactly the reasons you named for an incident meter being unsuitable.

Modern in-camera meters are very, very good. (I love the one in my D700; combined with the automatic Active D-Lighting, it usually gets me an acceptable exposure. But almost never the absolutely ideal exposure, as I would get with an incident meter.) But incident meters in skilled hands are by far the best meters for street shooting, as they never get fooled unless you yourself get fooled.

yeknom02 said:

While I'm waiting, can someone explain this whole "matrix metering" thing to me?

Click to expand...

The FA matrix metering takes samples from 5 different areas of the frame, and compares/calculates the optimum exposure.

2F/2F said:

What was wrong with the Canon FD system? What didn't you like about it? Nikon's F system won't give you anything of import that Canon's FD system will not, and FD stuff is cheaper (and not for reasons of quality).

Click to expand...

- My AE-1 ended up really eating batteries, the model of which were getting hard to find locally. Or at least they weren't as widely available. So I frequently found myself with a dead camera every few months. I thought I wanted an all-mechanical body, but I decided I could also accept an electronic shutter that would simply take more widely available batteries.
- I didn't like the maximum shutter speed or flash sync speed on the AE-1, which is also the primary reason I crossed the F3 off the list.
- I recently tried out a friend's FE2 (and an F3 that was in for repair) and loved the feel of both cameras much more than the AE-1. I'm assuming the FA and other Nikon cameras would have a similar feel.
- When I look at specs, there are a greater number of Nikon bodies that have the features I'd prefer when compared to Canon FD-era bodies. Looking at them side-by-side, an FE2 and an FA are nearly exactly what I want.

I'm very aware of the benefits of incident metering, and it's usually my go-to strategy. I use a Gossen Luna-Pro for that. However, I've also had shots ruined by not noticing when the light has changed slowly over time, or simply being not fast enough on the draw. (I would have been dead meat in the old West.) I used to shoot the AE-1 on 'A' all the time, and it worked for essentially everything I wanted. Fortunately, I was usually clever enough to know when I was in a situation that required I take it out of Auto.

The only downside is the lens cost, but I guess I can deal with it if I don't go lens crazy. I only had one other FD lens anyway, so it's not like I have to sell away a ton of equipment at a huge loss.

I never found the Nikon lenses to be appreciable better than Canon. As lens quality is important to you, why not move up to Leica or Contax with Zeiss lenses. A Leica SLR with a couple of lenses is not super expensive. The Contax cameras with their Zeiss glass makes for a very good system at a resonable price also. I am one who thinks the body is little more than a box that holds a shutter, film and lens flange. Many bodies do it all well. A Yashica FX-3 is a relable body, shutter speeds for a decent one seem reliably accurate, has a metal lens flange and reportedly the film is held quite flat, as well as mos cameras. These are mechanical shutter cameras and the mirror noise is quite low. The covering tends to flake but, there is an aftermarket supplier to replace the covering. The Yashica lenses are supposed to have been knockoffs of the Zeiss used on the upper tier Contax line. The Zeiss lenses are top notch. As budget permits you can even move up to the RTS body with the vacuumn film plate that reportedly hold the film flatter than any other 35mm camera.

I have a FX-3 that has been knocked around alot. Made my own crude replacement covering for it years ago. With Yashica glass, it produces very competitively good results as a fraction of the cost of the big names/models. I'd use it more if I did not have my Bronica and Leica.

As for metering when doing street photogrpahy, get to know light and use your brain and mind after dialing in a general reading off a meter. In most street work, by the time you meter, set the camera's aperature and speed, think about DoF, etc. you miss the decisive moment. The key is not technical perfection but, getting a print that tells the story and conveys the message and emotion.

Not to go back to the nikon N90s, but I have nevr gotten a badly exposed shot with it. The meter is pretty much always spot on. Especially if you overexpose 1/3 stop and then develop the film 10% less then your standard time for the film.

Please pm me if you have any questions.

Personal technique is going to be most of what makes images sharp or unsharp, not lenses. I don't think anyone could tell the difference between any two brands of lenses unless viewing mural-sized prints. I think this is especially true for this sort of work, too. You are doing extremely well if you get something in focus, and timed and composed well 10 percent of the time. I'd not bother splitting hairs between lenses based on brand. I just don't think that using a Leica or a Contax is "mov[ing] up" from a Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, etc. How much of the great, classic street work was made into what it is due to the brand of camera that the photographer shot? Most of it is grainy, not all that sharp, not all that beautiful in tonality (classically/technically speaking), and it is rarely printed large.

Talk about excellent points raised here. I initially was going to not recommend a manual focus camera and say anything autorfocus because I simply can't focus the way I used to with manual focus cameras and moving subjects. N90 is tough camera, however I must say a cheap N75 could be fun too. I love using mine around the house following the kids. Small and light.

I do absolutely love my old FA when everything gets done properly (focus for me can be a challenge)...I would say, ANY photo I have taken with my FA I find captivating. It looks like a classic photo that the guy who introducted photography would have taken many, many years ago. I love that look, I don't seem to get that look exactly the same when using an autofocus Nikon.

Whatever way you go don't regret it. Just keep working that angle....and perfect it.

Bob E.

yeknom02 said:

Anyone have any bad experiences with the FA?

Click to expand...

two died in my hand, right on the job--i had four total. shutter in both cases (same one in FE2)

i'm happy with my F2 stable now

CGW said:

Another option is to go for an F90x/N90s. They're very inexpensive and work well for me as a fast handling street camera with manual lenses. The built-in winder is nice(no need to break off eye contact) and the viewfinder is bigger and brighter than the FE/FM variants. Just park it Aperture priority and shoot. Electronic focus confirmation is another plus. I use a 45/2.8 AiP on mine(all matrix flash/metering functions work, thanks to the built-in chip) and find it a near-perfect for fast candids.

Click to expand...

IMO, this is one of the best combinations for street photography in the Nikon system.