Nikon F2 vs FM handling in use

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working PJ I shot with F, F2, and F3P, if weight matters the F3 is a tad lighter, with the meter built into the body it is not as top heavy as the metered F or F2, when the FM came out a lot of PJ bought one as back up and started to use them as a primary camera. Not as rugged as the F2 or 3, but unless you are shooting day and day out do you really need that level of build quality? If you shoot action then last consideration is the motor drive, the drive for the F3 was faster. When I upgraded from the F2 to 3, I was very tempted by the LX, with an MX as a back up. The MX is holding up, with a second beater body as a doner body for parts it should last quite a while. Until the release of the LX the MX was Pentax's top of the line body.

 

[Pieter12]

On the subject of service I have read that for shutter repair, the Copal shutter on the FM2 is usually replaced, not repaired. The availability of the shutter assembly could be an issue nowadays.

 

[Pieter12]

When I was a working PJ I shot with F, F2, and F3P, if weight matters the F3 is a tad lighter, with the meter built into the body it is not as top heavy as the metered F or F2, when the FM came out a lot of PJ bought one as back up and started to use them as a primary camera. Not as rugged as the F2 or 3, but unless you are shooting day and day out do you really need that level of build quality? If you shoot action then last consideration is the motor drive, the drive for the F3 was faster. When I upgraded from the F2 to 3, I was very tempted by the LX, with an MX as a back up. The MX is holding up, with a second beater body as a doner body for parts it should last quite a while. Until the release of the LX the MX was Pentax's top of the line body.

Ruggedness comes into play as the sturdier cameras will tend to have a longer life.

 

[BradS]

Adding to what Paul says above, the Nikon F3 also has better ergonomics than the FM,FE, F2. The F3's meter and shutter are also more accurate and reliable than any of the predecessors.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have used the F2 with the plain prism and the DP-12 prism for 7 years from 1977 to 1984 when it was stolen from me. I currently own 3 FM/FM2 etc.. If you don't care about the meter then the F2 with plain prism is better in these respect.
1. You can have a variety of focusing screens. I like a plain focusing screen without any focusing aid and thus I can focus on any part of the screen (kind of anti rangefinder because with rangefinder you have to focus at the center of the screen).
2. The view is not only 100% of what will be captured on film, there is nothing protruding into the image area like the meter LED, Shutter speed indication etc...
3. The film advance has a short stroke but I would say because of that it's much heavier than the Leica.
4. The film back release is at the bottom of the camera I like that much better.
The F2 is bigger and heavier than the FM but I would prefer the F2. The smaller FM doesn't fit in my pocket any way. If it doesn't fit in the pocket then small doesn't count. I never use the wrist strap with any camera.

 

[BradS]

I currently own and use the F2, F2SB and F2A (with DP-1, DP-3 and DP-11 finders respectively) and an F3HP. I have previously owned and used several FE, an FA and an FM3a.

They're all extremely good cameras but at this point, they're all OLD. Differences between individuals due to age, the way they were used and stored will likely be more significant that whatever minor (if any) quality differences there may have been between the various models when they left the factory. Nit-picking one model vs another on the basis of "build quality" is kinda pointless. The models are differentiated by features...not "build quality". (They all had excellent "build quality" when they were new but now they're all OLD).

Figure out what model is best for you based upon the features you want / need first. Then put some time and effort into finding an individual of that model in good condition.

 

[Pieter12]

I currently own and use the F2, F2SB and F2A (with DP-1, DP-3 and DP-11 finders respectively) and an F3HP. I have previously owned and used several FE, an FA and an FM3a.

They're all extremely good cameras but at this point, they're all OLD. Differences between individuals due to age, the way they were used and stored will likely be more significant that whatever minor (if any) quality differences there may have been between the various models when they left the factory. Nit-picking one model vs another on the basis of "build quality" is kinda pointless. The models are differentiated by features...not "build quality". (They all had excellent "build quality" when they were new but now they're all OLD).

Figure out what model is best for you based upon the features you want / need first. Then put some time and effort into finding an individual of that model in good condition.

One thing to factor in is the F2 as a professional model will most probably have seen much more use and abuse than the FM2. The pros did not coddle their cameras in the field, but the were serviced more frequently.

 

[Chan Tran]

One thing to factor in is the F2 as a professional model will most probably have seen much more use and abuse than the FM2. The pros did not coddle their cameras in the field, but the were serviced more frequently.

Not necesarity so. Many of the F2's were owned by amateur. I have owned F2, F3, F4 and F5 and I am not a pro and I don't abuse my cameras like pros do.

 

[Pieter12]

But the majority was used by pros. Sure, there were amateurs who would or could spend the kind of money a new Nikon pro camera cost, but the majority went to pros.

 

[Huss]

I'm not necessarily trying to justify a service, I was just wondering if any good repair shop that could handle an FM service could handle an F2 service as well, or does the F2 require some specialized knowledge that only someone like Sover Wong would have.

I wonder about the argument that buying a replacement camera is cheaper than servicing. Unless you buy a replacement that has recently been serviced, my guess is the replacement camera could very likely need a service as well.

No specialized knowledge required to service the F2. Sover just specializes on that camera because he loves them. Better chance getting an F2 serviced/fixed than any FM/FM2/FE/FE2/FM3a. Those are serviceable, but you may be outta luck if there is a shutter issue or electrical issues. The cloth shutter on the F2 is 'easy' to replace.

 

[BradS]

One thing to factor in is the F2 as a professional model will most probably have seen much more use and abuse than the FM2. The pros did not coddle their cameras in the field, but the were serviced more frequently.

Mmm, Yeah but...

it is not so simple as that

First off, many of the F2 that were beat to hell by professionals are long gone, discarded with the trash. So, not really a consideration today.

Second, Pros that paid for their own gear tended to take better care of it than pros that had gear provided for them by their employer.

Third, Pros always have more than one camera and they usually have a "favorite" that gets used far more than all the others.

Fourth, The F2's that were owned and used by pros were far more likely to have received periodic maintenance by a trained professional than anything owned by a amateur.

I currently have five Nikon F2 of various flavors. One, I acquired from a retired independent photo journalist who worked down in L.A. in the 1980's and early 1990's. Of the five F2 I currently own, this camera has seen the most use, traveled the most miles, may have exposed more rolls of film that all the others combined, shows the most cosmetic wear and has developed a couple of minor operational 'quirks' but, it has also benefited from regular periodic maintenance. It is smooth, quiet and the DP-3 meter is dead on accurate. In fact, of the five F2 I currently own, only one is smoother and quieter in operation and more reliable than the well traveled F2 that served my friend professionally, and that is because it was overhauled by Sover Wong.

 

[Huss]

What it comes down to is, due you want the smaller/lighter camera? Then get the FM.
Do you prefer the bigger, nicer feeling camera? Get the F2.

 

[jimjm]

No specialized knowledge required to service the F2. Sover just specializes on that camera because he loves them. Better chance getting an F2 serviced/fixed than any FM/FM2/FE/FE2/FM3a. Those are serviceable, but you may be outta luck if there is a shutter issue or electrical issues. The cloth shutter on the F2 is 'easy' to replace.

F2 used a titanium shutter during the entirety of it's run. The F had a cloth shutter when first introduced in '59, but was replaced with titanium soon after. All of the FE/FM cameras and successors used the Copal shutters, either aluminum or titanium, and they've proven to be very reliable as well. Nikon first started using these with the earlier Nikkormat bodies.
I just recently had my favorite F2A serviced by Sover and he did a great job. He provides a detailed description of all problems found and work performed, as well as accompanying photos. Mechanically and electrically, it's like a new camera and is worth the cost if you plan on keeping the camera and using it often.

 

[reddesert]

If you want a smaller, lighter, close to the OM-1 size camera, then my recommendation is to get both a chrome FE and a black FM. Other people will say the other way around, but they're wrong.

They're all good and I think the most important issue is BradS's point that, given these are 40 years old, condition of the individual example of a camera matters more than nebulous issues of serviceability. If you get a good one, it can last a long time without service. And most of the time if something goes wrong it is probably an electrical contact or maybe a jam that an experienced/bold person can unjam.

IMO a reason to get a Nikon, is that you're buying into the F mount because of the large universe of good quality compatible gear at affordable prices. The details of which body or lens are somewhat secondary, I mean there are better and less-good ones, but you can change for a different type of body (bigger, smaller, more or less automatic, etc) without having to buy all new lenses, and so on.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had all of my Fs CLAed by Nikon once a year, in terms of how many F to F5 were used by pros vs the number used by folks who did not shoot every day for a living. It was a questioned I asked Nikon in London. The service manager said that Nikon sold a lot more F model cameras than there pros who used them 35mm cameras on a daily bases. That would include studio photographers who are pros but shoot MF and LF, fine art photographers who shoot LF, and only on occasion 35mm, think of Ansel Adams. Although Nikon at the time, 60 to 80s was the pro brand, there were many pros who used Pentax, Leica, Minolta, Canon, and the list goes on, you can still find good working low shutter activations Nikon bodies, be prepared to pay the price. I would get 2, second for a parts camera. What I don't know is how well a 80s vintage integrated circuit board or chip will hold up even when not in use.

 

[Pieter12]

Just a brief search of photos of photojournalists (especially wartime ones) with one or several cameras hanging around their neck would show that Nikon and Leica were by far the cameras of choice. Even sports photographers on the sidelines would be touting Canon long telephoto lenses on Nikon bodies. Studio photographers don't usually shoot 35mm (except maybe fashion) and they don't subject their gear to the same set of circumstances as news photographers. They are not squeezed together, jockeying for position at a news conference, running around with cameras bobbing about, out in the rain and snow to cover a story. Of course, not all work in the same harsh conditions, but their camera is a tool, to be maintained as necessary, but worked hard. Sure, there are many pro cameras that are shelf queens, but a camera in the pro category will probably show wear and tear (at least cosmetically) and should be inspected carefully if possible before making a commitment to it. Nikon has their Pro Service in major markets and even at major sporting events where pros can get priority turn-around and even temporary loaners.

 

[BradS]

.... What I don't know is how well a 80s vintage integrated circuit board or chip will hold up even when not in use.

The chips and circuit boards and, in general, electronic components are far more relaible than the wires, solder joints, switch gear and battery contacts.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

The F2 is/was a camera designed and marketed for professional use. As such, it was designed to be serviced periodically and many were regularly serviced. The FM (and FE, et. al.) was targeted at the amateur market and was not really designed to be serviced and most of them have never been touched by a technician (because they've simply never needed it). This has many implications...some counter-intuitive.

The biggest problems we all face is the non-availability of parts and that there are far fewer qualified techs around today than there were twenty and thirty years ago...and now, there way too many folks who are willing to "destroy it yerself".

The obvious advantages of having Sover Wong work on an F2? ... he has OEM parts and actually knows what he's doing. He's outrageously expensive and has a ridiculously long queue (14 months last time I checked)...but he'll make an F2 work and feel like new....and he's a gentleman!

WIth the price of FM's and FE' of late , forget servicing and buy another one.

 

[250swb]

I'm not necessarily trying to justify a service, I was just wondering if any good repair shop that could handle an FM service could handle an F2 service as well, or does the F2 require some specialized knowledge that only someone like Sover Wong would have.

I wonder about the argument that buying a replacement camera is cheaper than servicing. Unless you buy a replacement that has recently been serviced, my guess is the replacement camera could very likely need a service as well.

Nikon's are generally reliable cameras and faults in second hand cameras are usually evident immediately, if they then go wrong over time this is obviously a concern for all cameras, even for one that has been serviced. Many of the glitches in older Nikons, such as sticky shutter or film advance, can be dealt with by taking the baseplate off and applying grease or oil to various pivots and cams, most of the mechanism is there in front of you. YouTube can supply videos for more complicated owner repairs but the confidence of taking things apart and putting them back together is becoming less common because people don't learn as kids anymore. But your guess that any 'new' second hand camera is likely to need a service is far too pessimistic, and also baffling given there isn't an epidemic of people coming to the forum with second hand camera problems, only a very few in the scheme of things. And the best preventative maintenance for any camera is to use it.

And for those recommending Sover Wong to service an F2, he's not taking any new bookings until June 2024, and from then onwards taking on new work on a reduced basis, so good luck.

 

[hsandler]

A big difference between the F2 and FM, other than weight, is the eyepoint. If you wear glasses when you shoot, the F2 lets you see almost to the corners. The FM has a 14mm eyepoint and you will need to move your eye position around a lot, especially to see the aperture and meter LEDs. I have the F2 photomic and prefer the brighter aperture/shutter speed display. The plain prism is very expensive. So if you are used to a Leica with squinty rangefinder, you are probably best to go with an early FM without the need to pull out the winder to unlock the shutter.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I wonder why nobody has mentioned a Nikon F as another possibility. The ergonomics are very similar to those of an F2, except that the location of the shutter release is similar to that of the OP's IIf, unlike all of the other cameras mentioned here. And plain prism F's seem to be less expensive these days than plain prism F2's.

 

[Paul Howell]

But the majority was used by pros. Sure, there were amateurs who would or could spend the kind of money a new Nikon pro camera cost, but the majority went to pros.

That is not what Nikon told me in the mid 80s, most were going to what we call advanced amateurs with deep pockets. 816,000 F2 were made, 862,000 F, and 751,000 F3 were made, not counting Leica M3, 4, 5, and 6, Canon F-1, Pentax Mx, LX, Minolta XK, Topcon Super DM, not sure how many were made. When I was shooting with a F3P I saw lots of Fs and F2 still in use. My point is that there are still many F2 around that were not beaten to death by pros, just need to look and be willing to pay for clean well cared for body, finding one in good shape but not used in a long while, include the cost of a CLA.

 

[250swb]

I wonder why nobody has mentioned a Nikon F as another possibility. The ergonomics are very similar to those of an F2, except that the location of the shutter release is similar to that of the OP's IIf, unlike all of the other cameras mentioned here. And plain prism F's seem to be less expensive these days than plain prism F2's.

Nikon F’s are an option, but they vary vastly in quality compared with an F2. I think the first thing you notice is that there are clearly a lot of F’s around that were use and abused and then probably replaced with a generation later camera. Professional photographers often jumped generations of camera (because money spent on a camera isn’t money to feed the kids) so their next camera could have been an F3 and not an F2. After the F3 Nikon advanced technology quickly and so gear upgrades became quicker. So pro rata the older models got used for longer and harder.

Which means there are a lot of F’s around that have been stored away in garages and attics and now coming to the market, and often they are not good. But the good ones in amongst them can still be very, very good. Things to look out for is separation of the prism silvering and fungus in cameras especially from humid clines.

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

I do love the F, especially the fact that it's built on the chassis of a rangefinder (I've heard the shutter is much quieter than the F2, for instance), but man I wish it had the smoothed out edges of the F2. I'm not a fan of the folded-sheet-metal aesthetic. I don't really care about the functional improvements of the F2 — the 'bad' shutter placement of the F is the same as my iif and I have no problem with it, the 'difficult' film loading is hilariously easy compared to the Barnack, etc — it's all about looks heh

 

[hap]

I still don't get a feel of consensus regarding FE and FM. I have both and I'm preparing to sell one of them. I like all mechanical cameras and some with elecdtronics. Somehow long ago i bought a pristine FA and it also sits around. Cleaning out a brood of Nikons could pave the way for a F6. Have no pre AI lenses to bother with. Gave up a while back on a F2as.