Nikon FE2 vs FM2

[Les Sarile]

How is the build quality and materials used in the FM3A?

Check out the development insight on the FM3A.

 

[Hops]

I'm a fan of the original FM over the FM2 and FM3. It's mostly an emotional response. The FM has more metal bits on it. Seems like they were trying to shave costs on the FM2 and FM3. I'm under no illusion that this makes any difference to the reliability of the camera. I just like metal and I don't need 1/4000th or any of the other spec improvements.

 

[23mjm]

My FM2 has never let me down.

My FE2 has.

Oh I would like to hear this please elaborate!!!!

 

[CGW]

Check out the development insight on the FM3A.

Aside from a sense of whimsy, Nikon's rationale for the FM3a was curiously uninformed by the huge changes afoot in imaging. I recall handling one at Nikon.ca when they first arrived in Canada and thinking, "too bad it's not 1995!" They were DOA(along with the little 45.28 Ai-P lens)at most retailers, who struggled to justify their steep pricing(around US$800 body only) alongside Nikon's sub-1000 buck DSLRs like the D70. Despite the technical sophistication of the FM3a, it didn't have the apparent build quality of the earlier FM/FE bodies.

 

[rst]

I have both of them and if I would have to decide on one of them, the FE2 would have to go. But which one you prefer is probably a question of preference as both are good cameras. I for myself think that the FM2 just has exactly the features I need. Not more but also not less.

Cheers
Ruediger

 

[paulfish4570]

I have fallen in love with my FE2 in only a couple of months of use.
I keep spare bats (they are a very common type), but I am near luddite-ical is my enjoyment and use of manual cameras. So, the yearning for an FM2 companion body. Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS on one, E35/2.5 (no scoffing, please) on the other.
The FE2 is so fast to use, and the meter is superb ...

 

[Les Sarile]

Aside from a sense of whimsy, Nikon's rationale for the FM3a was curiously uninformed by the huge changes afoot in imaging. I recall handling one at Nikon.ca when they first arrived in Canada and thinking, "too bad it's not 1995!" They were DOA(along with the little 45.28 Ai-P lens)at most retailers, who struggled to justify their steep pricing(around US$800 body only) alongside Nikon's sub-1000 buck DSLRs like the D70. Despite the technical sophistication of the FM3a, it didn't have the apparent build quality of the earlier FM/FE bodies.

To be sure, I believe the Nikon engineers achieved in the FM3A the only hybrid design that allows all shutter speeds to be available when the battery runs out.

Regarding DOA see article - Receiving unexpected favorable reviews

Of course now we have the benefit of hindsight and the resale value of the top Nikon DSLRs at the time of its release - D1X and D1H, is less then the FM3A. The 2004 released D70 is even less.

No doubt one has to weigh the cost of one FM3A that can pull split duty as opposed to getting both FE2 and FM2. But I say, get them all . . . ;-)

 

[markbarendt]

Oh I would like to hear this please elaborate!!!!

I actually have two FE2's that I bought used that worked great for a while but the shutters developed issues at inopportune times.

I love the match needle meter but I could buy an F100 or 3 N90s's in great shape for less than the price of repairing one FE2.

If I'm going to have to use batteries I may as well get some more automation and fancy metering and more modern TTL flash.

My FM2 meter works just fine, not quite as handy as the needle but I only meter once for any given situation. My FM2 has never so much as hiccuped, the only failures I've ever had with this camera have been purely my own fault.

 

[CGW]

To be sure, I believe the Nikon engineers achieved in the FM3A the only hybrid design that allows all shutter speeds to be available when the battery runs out.

Regarding DOA see article - Receiving unexpected favorable reviews

Of course now we have the benefit of hindsight and the resale value of the top Nikon DSLRs at the time of its release - D1X and D1H, is less then the FM3A. The 2004 released D70 is even less.

No doubt one has to weigh the cost of one FM3A that can pull split duty as opposed to getting both FE2 and FM2. But I say, get them all . . . ;-)

There was alot to like about the FM3a but it just didn't sell, mainly because it was way too late for a pricey MF camera in 2001. Digital aside, Nikon produced a string of popular AF cameras(N90s, F5, F100) during the 90s that made the FM3a seem a non sequitur. Dealers around Toronto didn't really know how to sell what looked like an early 80s camera--despite its capabilities. I have several FE, F3HP and N90s bodies, among others, but never saw the need for an FM3a. Obviously many others felt the same.

 

[Jeffrey A. Steinberg]

I have an FM2, and F3 and an FM3a. In order of preference I reach for my F3 (built like a tank), FM3A (a great camera that has never let me down) and then the FM2. The FM2 and the FM3a feel great
with the MD12. Perfect weight. The F3/MD4 gets a bit heavy.

 

[Les Sarile]

BTW, unlike the manual FM2, the FE2 (as well as FA, F3 & FG) all waste the film up until the counter shows #1. As I understand it, this was desirable to make it easy to advance to frame #1 without getting hung up on a metered long exposure if the camera was set to auto exposure. With all my other manual cameras, I can usually get at least 2 more frames from a roll - sometimes 3, if I properly load the film.

I don't see it suggested but the Nikon FG is quite the shooter as well. Of the 3 models - EM, FG and FG-20, the FG is the one to look for. Checkout the review of FG20

 

[perkeleellinen]

The interesting bit about the FG is the removable hand grip. Would be nice to be able and screw that onto all manual Nikons.

 

[Pumalite]

I have them all, but I'm with 2F/2F; I reach more for the F, F2 or Nikkormat. You can get great glass too.

 

[Hops]

I was given an FG because the owner thought it was broken. But it was just that it wouldn't shoot until frame #1.

Great little camera I think. Does just about everything, but no DOF preview. I really like the meter and the shutter speed display in the viewfinder. You can even turn the shutter wheel without moving your right hand.

Since it came to me for free, I've been loaning it to a series of friends who want to try film.

 

[Chan Tran]

But can't most of the manual focus cameras do just the same?

No! Many has only 1 shutter speed if the battery is dead. The FE and FE2 for one. The Canon AE-1 and AE-1P as well as all of their sibling like AT1, AL1, AV1 and A1 as well as all of the Canon T series like T90, T70. Among the Nikon any of the FE won't work. The F3, FA, FG/FG20 won't work either. The Olympus OM2, OM4 won't work. The Pentax ME series. The Minolta X series XD-11, XG (1, M etc..), X700, X370 etc.. won't work. So there are many manual focus camera that won't work without battery.
To answer the OP question. I think the FM2 fetch more money in the used market than the FE2. The FE2 has more functionaliy than the FM2. More long shutter speed, auto mode, TTL flash but it won't work without the battery but the FM2 will. Personally I would pick the FE2 as it's cheaper now (wasn't cheaper when they were new) than the FM2.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I think it's the battery-less possibility of the FM2 that keeps its price fairly high on the used market. For many coming from digital, it's the very antithesis of what they've shot with before and this probably creates demand from those looking for a clean break.

 

[Pumalite]

So this; after all seems to be a fashion statement after all from the OP:
"Being a digital Nikon user with a fair share of Nikkor lenses I've since then (and even before that) lusted for the FM2, among several reasons being that so many great photographers seem to like to be portrayed with this particular camera, and stories of how it used to be a kind of a press photographers favourite in the eighties and nineties."

Lacamera of the 80': F3HP


Lacamera od the 90': FM3A

 

[CGW]

So this; after all seems to be a fashion statement after all from the OP:
"Being a digital Nikon user with a fair share of Nikkor lenses I've since then (and even before that) lusted for the FM2, among several reasons being that so many great photographers seem to like to be portrayed with this particular camera, and stories of how it used to be a kind of a press photographers favourite in the eighties and nineties."

Lacamera of the 80': F3HP


Lacamera od the 90': FM3A

Clueless hipsterism? Maybe...

 

[Top-Cat]

Never really said I thought of it as a fashion statement, though I've actually experienced that the "fashion statement" aspect of manual focus SLRs can be quite helpful - seeing as a lot of people often react differently towards what type of a camera the photographer uses. I mean, if people see an ordinary DSLR user, he's often conceived as somewhat of a paparazzo compared to the manual focus film photographer thought of as an "artist", people don't notice you're taking the picture because they're too busy looking at the camera.

I'm just saying it's an added bonus knowing in the back of your head that someone used this gear to make great pictures, it just feels like a bit of significant history. Not to say that it's the gear that makes the picture (I fall into the "hopeless collector" category rather than "gearhead" one, though there is some slight chance that there's no big difference between the two), I'm just saying it's inspiring to experience something that seems like an important historical camera.

And as far as hipsterism is concerned, I think this article explains it quite well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/books/review/Greif-t.html?_r=4

Anyway, I got the FE2 (as I tried to explain, I wasn't really going to get any FM2, just asking about the differences), seeing as it was both cheaper, the one I was offered, and seemed even slightly more convenient to use.

 

[paulfish4570]

I hope you like your FE2 as much as I like mine.

 

[wotalegend]

I have an FM, FE, FM2n, and FE2. All four of them together are probably worth less than one FM3a on current prices. IMHO the FE2 will do 95% of what the FM3a will do, provided you carry spare batteries as I always do. Yes, the FE2 and the FE use batteries faster than the FM series because the battery controls the shutter as well as the meter. I prefer to use the FE2 in good light because its match-needle and AE make it faster to use. In poor light I prefer the FM2n because the LED lights are easier to see then. The earlier FM and FE have the ability to use pre-Ai lenses. None of them have ever let me down.

 

[CGW]

Never really said I thought of it as a fashion statement, though I've actually experienced that the "fashion statement" aspect of manual focus SLRs can be quite helpful - seeing as a lot of people often react differently towards what type of a camera the photographer uses. I mean, if people see an ordinary DSLR user, he's often conceived as somewhat of a paparazzo compared to the manual focus film photographer thought of as an "artist", people don't notice you're taking the picture because they're too busy looking at the camera.

I'm just saying it's an added bonus knowing in the back of your head that someone used this gear to make great pictures, it just feels like a bit of significant history. Not to say that it's the gear that makes the picture (I fall into the "hopeless collector" category rather than "gearhead" one, though there is some slight chance that there's no big difference between the two), I'm just saying it's inspiring to experience something that seems like an important historical camera.

And as far as hipsterism is concerned, I think this article explains it quite well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/books/review/Greif-t.html?_r=4

Anyway, I got the FE2 (as I tried to explain, I wasn't really going to get any FM2, just asking about the differences), seeing as it was both cheaper, the one I was offered, and seemed even slightly more convenient to use.

Yea, right. The NYT article(been there) partially prompted pasting the label on this. Frankly, a lot of birthday parties and vacations got shot with the FE2, though I'm not so sure about much else. Still think an F3HP+MD4 fit better into this retro gestalt you've fashioned simply because it was industry standard 80s PJ gear. The FE2? No. Have fun.

 

[Top-Cat]

I'm really just trying to keep a lighter note on this and not turn this into some silly flame war, I'm not all that offended by accusations of "hipsterism" as well as "fashion statements" as I should be, I'm just kind of reacting to this condescending and gravely serious attitude just for making an obviously superficial and silly comment. What I'm really trying to say is that by blatantly categorizing it as a "fashion statement" is really just a supercilious over-simplification because even though I accept the description of it being partly a fashion statement - I still refuse the simplified definition of it as being nothing other than just that. I tried to explain that it's a part of it, maintaining some amount of self-irony, though not as an absolute assertion.

Your interpretation of the post, as well as this thread, is obviously intentionally reduced to insufficiency, and in a way incriminating yourself as the exact thing you're trying to accuse someone else of being.

I really don't see the point of antagonizing like that.

 

[2F/2F]

If it is a fashion statement, then how about a cooler-looking camera? Get an old Exakta, or at least an F or F2 Photomic!

 

[CGW]

I'm really just trying to keep a lighter note on this and not turn this into some silly flame war, I'm not all that offended by accusations of "hipsterism" as well as "fashion statements" as I should be, I'm just kind of reacting to this condescending and gravely serious attitude just for making an obviously superficial and silly comment. What I'm really trying to say is that by blatantly categorizing it as a "fashion statement" is really just a supercilious over-simplification because even though I accept the description of it being partly a fashion statement - I still refuse the simplified definition of it as being nothing other than just that. I tried to explain that it's a part of it, maintaining some amount of self-irony, though not as an absolute assertion.

Your interpretation of the post, as well as this thread, is obviously intentionally reduced to insufficiency, and in a way incriminating yourself as the exact thing you're trying to accuse someone else of being.

I really don't see the point of antagonizing like that.

It's just a camera, dude. Why freight getting and shooting it with all these silly(your term)fantasy backstory hallucinations? Go burn some film.