Nikon choice

[rjay1992]

Hello,

I currently have a Nikon FM2, I love it very much and use it often. I had contemplated getting an original Nikon F with a Photomic meter. Would the FM2 be considered a better camera than the original F?

Thanks

 

[Leigh B]

Hi, and welcome to APUG.

Apples and oranges.

The F was Nikon's first professional camera, and built for that application.
There were accessories and options to customize it however one woulc like.

The FM2 is a consumer camera. Very nice camera, but a notch down from the F.
Far fewer options and accessories, but newer and still a very well-built camera.

At this point in the 3rd Millennium, you might expect better reliability from the FM2.

- Leigh

 

[ransel]

I have had F's, currently have an F2 (purchased used in 1982) and an FM (have had several but sold and kept one). I have never had an FM2. They are all great cameras - never had one fail.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think the better comparison is the FM2 and F3, the F3 has additional features, faster motor drive, aperture priority exposure, pro level build quality. The Nikkormate was the consumer grade level body in the same time line as the F. The FM2 is newer, the F is now 40 to 30 years old, the meter uses batteries no longer made, and the FM2 motor drive is faster than the F motor dive. Some just like the F, when a working PJ I had the F, F2 and F3P, of the three I liked the F2 best. Very solid body, just the right size and weight for me. The meter on the F was good for the day, but a newer body even a proconsumer body like the FM2 will be better.

 

[trythis]

I have a F2 and an FM2, I only like the F2 as a curiosity and the awesome mechanical feel of it. The big viewfinder is nicer with glasses but its so heavy compared to the FM/FE sized cameras and then cumbersome due to the old metering system. I am not a sunny 16 follower; I like having a meter and the one in my F2 works but is slow and has a lower range. I've got an F3 as well, but its heavy and shares the wacko flash mount of the F2 and F.

No one looking at your photos will have any idea which camera you were using.

 

[chip j]

I just sold a FM2n here on APUG--mint, but it always seemed too toy-like for me w/a disturbing mirror-clunk. Bought a F2 to go w/ my mint F & well-used F3.

 

[darkosaric]

Do you make prints, and do you crop? If you don't crop, and you print by yourself - then 100% viewfinder is nice to have (so F/F2/F3... are the way to go).

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Unless you find an F with a good working FTn finder, I'd look for an eyelevel version, then either use a hand meter or your phone with a light meter app. Yes, it'll be more expensive than a metered version, but, at the same time, it'll be only slightly larger and heavier than your FM2. That way, provided you don't have long lenses attached, you can comfortably have them hanging, Dennis Hopper-style, from your neck.

-J

 

[Glen Diamond]

Hello,

I currently have a Nikon FM2, I love it very much and use it often. I had contemplated getting an original Nikon F with a Photomic meter. Would the FM2 be considered a better camera than the original F?

Thanks

Your FM2 has a faster flash sync than an F3. I suppose it depends what type of photography and how old your lenses are. The Pro cameras had better weather sealing and bigger viewfinders but the trade off is they were heavier. Some of the earlier models had a quirky way of mounting the lens (Rabbit ears needed to be synchronised with the light meter!!)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello,

I currently have a Nikon FM2, I love it very much and use it often. I had contemplated getting an original Nikon F with a Photomic meter. Would the FM2 be considered a better camera than the original F?

Thanks

in my viewes! others may differ.

 

[Chan Tran]

The F has more choices of focusing screen and the viewfinder is 100% but that's about the only things I can think of. Other than that the FM2 is the better camera all around.
If you want to use the meter then the FM2 meter is far superior to any version of the photomic head.

 

[zanxion72]

Do you really need interchangeable screens? Do you like having something heavy hanging from your neck? If yes, the F makes a perfect for you. Else, you will enjoy and appreciate your FM by quite a bit.
If you want an F just because you can afford it, get it purely as a collector's camera. Try one before you buy.
(see here how heavy an F is going to be: Nikon F. Compare that to the 540g of the FM)

 

[Ap507b]

Agree with the suggestions to look at an F2 over an F. It is smoother to shoot than the F IMO. Shutter button in a more natural place, the hinged back is easier to use than the slide off back too. Also more chance of finding a working meter.

The F2A can be picked up for a reasonable price & meters with AI lenses.

Have an F with an eye level finder, a couple of F2's & an FM2 & use the F2's most often.

 

[MontanaJay]

The FTn meter was the first -- and only -- thing that failed on my Nikon F. And it added a lot of weight and bulk to an already heavy camera.
I'd go with the FM, unless you have a special need for the F's features, like a lock-up mirror.

 

[Jim Jones]

I used a F with FT and FTn finders for years, and found them to be clumsy. The meters are the weakest feature. I find the plain prism finder and a hand held meter more practical. Aside from the meters, the build quality of the F1 and Nikkormat are perhaps better than the FM series. The FM is handier.

 

[narsuitus]

I currently have a Nikon FM2, I love it very much and use it often. I had contemplated getting an original Nikon F with a Photomic meter. Would the FM2 be considered a better camera than the original F?

I have used the Nikon F, F2, F3, and F4. I still use the F2 and F4. I have never used the Nikon FM2.

Yes, the original F is better than the FM2 if you need the features the original Nikon F has but the FM2 does not. However, if you do not need interchangeable view screens, interchangeable view finders, mirror lockup, 100% view finder coverage, and other features found in the F, F2, F3, F4, and F5 but not in the FM2, then the FM3a or another FM2 may be a better choice.

 

[ron917]

I own the F (with Photomic T and plain prisms), F3-HP (2 of them) and FM2n. They are all very different cameras. If you ask me which I like better, it will be whichever one is in my hand at the time I like them all but for different reasons.

They will all take equally good photos. But they all have a different feel when operating them.

If you think you might want an F, you should try one and see if you like it better than your FM2. If you can't borrow one, you should be able to buy and re-sell for no loss if you don't like it.

 

[Alan Gales]

I remember when the FM2 and FE2 came out. A friend of mine bought the FE2. He was thrilled about the top 1/4000 second shutter speed. I don't know if he ever shot it that fast though.

I was selling a lot of photo gear on Ebay for a friend of mine who inherited his Dad's collection. He had an original F. It looked big and clunky to me. I picked it up and played with it. I really liked it! It felt great in my hands. The shutter release is in the wrong place but I could get used to that quick.

I don't think you would go wrong with either camera.

 

[Leigh B]

...the build quality of the F1 and Nikkormat ...

???

Nikon never made an F1. That was a Canon camera.

- Leigh

 

[Jim Jones]

???

Nikon never made an F1. That was a Canon camera.

- Leigh

You're right. Proofreading once isn't enough.

 

[mweintraub]

Hi, and welcome to APUG.

Apples and oranges.

The F was Nikon's first professional camera, and built for that application.
There were accessories and options to customize it however one woulc like.

The FM2 is a consumer camera. Very nice camera, but a notch down from the F.
Far fewer options and accessories, but newer and still a very well-built camera.

At this point in the 3rd Millennium, you might expect better reliability from the FM2.

- Leigh

Wasn't the F Nikon's first SLR in general? But I agree it was a professional level, I mean it even took a bullet and saved at least one life.

Hello,

I currently have a Nikon FM2, I love it very much and use it often. I had contemplated getting an original Nikon F with a Photomic meter. Would the FM2 be considered a better camera than the original F?

Thanks

Different cameras. I have the F with non metered prism and it's fantastic. Also have the Fm2n. Each is a different experience shooting. I like them both. If you like the size of the Fm2n, you won't like the size of the F with meter. I find the metered prisms unwieldy.

 

[PGillin]

Do you shoot with flash? If yes, keep the FM2. The F-F3 have a much slower synch speed, which is the only thing that makes me (at times) question trading my F3 for an FE2 or FM3.
If you don't shoot flash or if you really need the interchangeable screens/finders etc, then go for something in the F-F2-F3 range. I'm not very fond of the F, because I like modern film loading, the shutter release, and the extra top speed of the F2 & F3 more. Also, the F's motor drives are very old and very klunky compared to the options existing for the FM/FE/F3, so that's another potential point in favor of keeping the FM.
You shouldn't see too much difference in reliability assuming well-treated or reasonably serviced examples. The FM definitely doesn't have the same fit & finish of the F-F3, but its by no means poor. Plenty of pro work was done by FM2 and FE2s, so you're in good company shooting it.