• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Nikon Discontinues FM10: Freestyle Photo

Just two weeks ago I purchased clean and fully functioning FG-20. For 56$. Why do I need 560$ camera which is same, just have lens I don't need for free? I don't know why. It makes no sense to pay ten times more now and in next ten or so years. And I still have EOS 300 which accepts and fully works with all of the current Canon lenses for 135, FF formats.
Camera was discontinued because they drove price behind reasonable, so nobody was buying it.
 
I'm not sure $560 is unreasonable for NEW camera. It's still a lot, don't get me wrong. Just remember your $56 camera is a USED camera with the associated wear and tear that comes with that. Nobody goes out and says I'm not going to buy a new Honda civic because I can buy one second hand that's just 20 years old and assumes it's just as good. I'm not saying a used car is as good as a used camera. Obviously an old used camera is going to be more reliable than an old used car but it illustrates the point. I also think that the reason nobody bought the camera wasn't because it was expensive but because it was film and not an iphone. You could sell it for $100 and I doubt many people would buy it. Most people have moved beyond film and also beyond cameras in general in favor of their phones.
 
I just paid $700 for an unused F3HP, not in box, but new. I didn't like the condition of the used ones I found, and am very happy with the purchase. Already have an FM2n that I bought new in the 1990's. I wanted the viewfinder of the HP version as I wear glasses.

I'd rather spend $700 for a great film camera versus a few thousand for a really good digital that seems built for obsolescence by comparison. The choice was easy.
 

That's what I hate about digital too- they're only cutting edge for this year, every 2-3 years there's a giant jump in megapixel count and you feel compelled to purchase a new one. Now that's probably my failing more so than the industry's. I could easily just say to myself, "No, this is good enough, I don't need a new one." but I don't.

Now I went out and bought a new Bessa R3M just as they discontinued them 2 years ago. I paid almost a thousand bucks for that camera but it hasn't required a single service like my older film cameras. My k2 died. My k1000 has needed repair twice and if my last roll of film is correct, will need work again (waiting for my next roll to confirm a shutter issue). My new old stock lubitel U also had to go in for repairs. I love that they can be fixed, I just hate that I often HAVE to fix them. Sometimes it's nicer to buy new, even when it costs you, so you can have some piece of mind for a while. Sure any new camera can have problems but chances are in your favour that they won't.
 
voceumana said:
I just paid $700 for an unused F3HP, not in box, but new. ...
Click to expand...

I wonder about lubricants, shutter curtains, and other components that have sat motionless for at least 20 years. I also wonder if the small electrolytic capacitors are so old that their dielectric oxide has dissipated since they've not been exposed to any forming charge over the decades.

Best of luck though - it's an extremely nice camera. I bought an F3/T new in 1988, have used it a lot, and it's still in like-new condition. Same for a champagne F3/T bought later.

Ces1um said:
That's what I hate about digital too- they're only cutting edge for this year, every 2-3 years there's a giant jump in megapixel count and you feel compelled to purchase a new one. ....
Click to expand...

For the d-people, there are also improvements in frame rate, video quality, LCD quality, etc. that lures them. I'm immune to digital GAS: my X-Pro1 and D700 are good enough and I have no desire for another digital camera.
 
You can buy a good working Leica SLR body for under $200. A LEICA that,when new, cost the equivalent of $4000 in today's money.

nuf sed?
 
summicron1 said:
You can buy a good working Leica SLR body for under $200. A LEICA that,when new, cost the equivalent of $4000 in today's money.

nuf sed?
Click to expand...
Not really. I agree, that's great value but that camera still has 30 year old electronics in it. It won't last like an all mechanical older model and you're going to have problems with it before a newly fabricated film camera simply because electronics become flaky as they age. Just because it's leica doesn't mean it's electronics are immune to the ravages of time. Also, a lot of those $200 leica slr's are based off of Minolta electronics. Certainly Minolta doesn't have the same pedigree. But yes- your point is valid. For the here and now, a $200 camera, albeit old and used, is better than spending $4000. You can buy 20 of those bodies for the price of one new one. It's good value for money. It just may let you down the next time you shoot that wedding or baby's first steps in a way that a brand new one likely wouldn't- at least you can afford 19 more backups.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
Is there a particular optical advantage offered by the electronic-aperture (E) lenses you want that isn't present in AF-S, AF-D, or older Nikkor lenses?
Click to expand...

Some don't exist in anything but E mount like the new 105mm 1.4 and my spectacular 200-500mm F5.6 VR. I shoot the latter on my F100 but only wide open. It would be awesome to be able to use it at all apertures.
 
faberryman said:
The FM10 is not made by Nikon but by Cosina. Its discontinuation is no loss.
Click to expand...

This camera was largely bought by schools who still have darkrooms and film photography programs, as well as school that have been opening NEW darkrooms. This is a loss to the students who have neither the resources or luxuries of investing in a personal film camera

In 2009 If my high school didn't have a risk free opportunity for me to use a film camera... who knows if I would have ended up where I am
 
Ai Print said:
Some don't exist in anything but E mount like the new 105mm 1.4 and my spectacular 200-500mm F5.6 VR. ...
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of that - 105/1.4 looks nice. According to KR, the new E lenses work only on Nikons introduced from about 2007. Nikon seems less concerned about compatibility these days - they're coaxing people to buy newer cameras. Just like they don't have wide DX primes in the hope of coaxing people to go to full frame (a Thom Hogan theme)


If I were teaching a photography class, I'd get a truckload of perfectly good Nikkormats for about $5 to $15 (yes, they were selling that inexpensively). It's much better built and has all the features you'd want in a manual only camera (such as mirror lock-up and DOF preview). It's both better and far less expensive than the FM-10. A school, or school system, could arrange with a reputable seller like KEH to obtain Nikkormats that are in good condition and have them repaired if need be. This way, the students, the schools, the seller, and people selling their cameras, all win.

 
Last edited:
Schools and other institutions often have rules that prohibit buying used goods.
So for that reason, the unavailability of new school cameras is a problem.
 
MattKing said:
Schools and other institutions often have rules that prohibit buying used goods.
So for that reason, the unavailability of new school cameras is a problem.
Click to expand...

Rules, eh? ...

Ok, I see a lot of students paying $100+ for used old K1000's. Nikkormat would still be better and less expensive, even with a pre-AI 50/1.8. Certainly less expensive than FM10 with lens.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
Rules, eh? ...

Ok, I see a lot of students paying $100+ for used old K1000's. Nikkormat would still be better and less expensive, even with a pre-AI 50/1.8. Certainly less expensive than FM10 with lens.
Click to expand...
I entirely agree about K1000s vs. Nikkormats.
My point though wasn't about student purchased cameras. It was about school purchased cameras.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
Rules, eh? ...

Ok, I see a lot of students paying $100+ for used old K1000's. Nikkormat would still be better and less expensive, even with a pre-AI 50/2. Certainly less expensive than FM10 with lens.
Click to expand...

Fixed the lens. Anyway, most instructors tend to frown on the Nikkormat FT series, probably due to the commonly-held misconception that all of them take the mecury PX625 battery. Also, why buy an FT2 or FT3 that may have an erratic (and possibly inaccurate, thanks to dead cells) CdS meter when an FM goes for slightly more and has a more accurate GPD metering system that seems to hold up better? Yeah, mirror lockup goes away, but the camera is somewhat smaller, lighter, and, if someone wants to, they can add a MD-11 or MD-12. That said, neither camera is really worth sending to a shop for repair, unless it's a family heirloom that has sentimental value. At $140-$180 for an overhaul on a body that may sell for $20-$90, it doesn't really add up. I hate to say that, since my first Nikon was a Nikomat FTn that was a trusty companion for me for a few years. Happened to be more reliable and in better mechanical/electrical condition than the somewhat nicer-looking FT2 that joined it in 1990.

So, as a student camera, a good working FM might be a better deal than an FT series body. Still probably not worth doing more than light seals on, though, unless you're repairing it yourself. An FM2n would be even better. Good working bodies can be had for less than $200. Cosmetically challenged, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register