Nikon FM10. Do you like it?

[trondsi]

I held one of these in my hands today, and I both like it and at the same time I am a bit skeptical. I can get it for a good price though. I guess my only "objection" is that it felt a bit plastic-ish compared to other (older) fully automatic cameras I have seen. But it seems to do a good job according to some searching around. What do you think? I am also interested in your opinion on the standard lens that comes with it.

 

[frank]

It does not have the build quality of earlier models. I believe it was made for Nikon by Cosina.

 

[trondsi]

It does not have the build quality of earlier models. I believe it was made for Nikon by Cosina.

I think you are right about who built it. Still, some people say good things. I can get it with the original lens, unused or barely used (I could see no sign of use whatsoever) for $250. I could get a Minolta XG1 for less, and it is clearly more robust, but I am not sure if I like the light meter in the old Minolta. The light meter in the Nikon seemed OK to me. Of course I haven't actually used either of them.

 

[frank]

No. Don't pay so much for a camera like that. I'd suggest an F3 and lens (any of the 50mm Nikkors are good though I'd stay away from 50f1.8 series E version 1) with money left over for film. Get real Nikon pro quality.

 

[trondsi]

Thanks for your input here, Frank. Does the F3 have a good light meter? One problem if I can't find it in one of the local stores is that I have bought several cameras online that need extra repairs that the seller don't tell you about. I don't know any local stores with the F3, but now I know that it's worth looking for.

 

[shutterfinger]

Frank is correct, the FM10 is/was made by Cosina. When the Pentax K1000 died Cosina designed a base camera with the option to customize it to a manufactures needs/wants. The same basic body was marketed as 5 or 6 different brands each with their own set of features and functions. I have forgotten the brands and models. One version was a Vivitar. If you can find a copy of a mid 1990's Popular Photography or Photographic magazine you will find the reviews/ads for the various versions.

It is an entry level body. Expect it to be good for 25000-50000 shutter fires.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM10 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina_CT-1
The Cosina CT-1 and variants was introduced in 1995.

 

[RattyMouse]

Thanks for your input here, Frank. Does the F3 have a good light meter? One problem if I can't find it in one of the local stores is that I have bought several cameras online that need extra repairs that the seller don't tell you about. I don't know any local stores with the F3, but now I know that it's worth looking for.

The F3 is a pro caliber camera, of course it will have an excellent meter. Keh.com will get you an F3 and if you dont like it, you can return it.

 

[Jim Jones]

Almost any Nikon brand camera except the old Nikkorex will be better than the FM10. I bought a new one for a friend many years ago, and it and its lens soon developed several problems. For decades I used Nikkormat and F1 bodies with Nikon lenses. They were reliable. Some Nikkormats require batteries for the meter which are no longer available in some areas.

 

[darkroommike]

You should be able to buy TEN Nikon FM-10 bodies for $250.00. We've picked up several for student check out and they all came back broken within a week and are unrepairable (plastic wind gears). You should be able to buy an FM, FE or possibly an F3 for that kind of money.

 

[trondsi]

Just spoke to a camera repairs man who has a Nikon FM that he is willing to sell (but he doesn't know the price yet). It looked pretty good to me, although I would have liked a 1/2000 sec shutter speed (the FM only goes to 1/1000, while the FM10 goes to 1/2000). He also showed me a Nikon (Nikkor?) lens that seemed to do everything at once: it was an old 35-135 zoom, with macro capabilities, extending like an old telescope (push/pull). Pretty interesting, although quite heavy. Is this lens any good?

 

[Sgore]

I agree whole heartedly with all who have advised you to get an F3, a decidedly excellent camera by any standard

 

[frank]

Primes are preferable for best possible quality. Most zooms, especially older ones, trade performance for convenience. Everyone can choose for themselves obviously, but if something is film-worthy, I'm going to compromise as little as makes sense to me.

 

[trondsi]

I am looking around a bit more to see if I can find a functioning F3 or F2. I think I like the F2 a bit more, because I have a decent batteryless lightmeter, but I don't think the F3 works without batteries. So with the F2 (or FM or F10) I could get to work without any batteries at all

While I totally agree with you guys that the FM10 feels a bit cheap (though lightweight can be a good thing, I don't think it will hold up to much abuse), it should be mentioned that David Hancock got converted to a FM10 lover after using it (though he points out that it is a student camera. I don't know, in my experience students can be very clumsy).


So, right now, F2 seems to be the best option for my preferences. The repairs guy has one, but the light meter in it does not work and is apparently hard to replace

 

[frank]

Who is David Hancock, and was he paid for his endorsement of a lightweight camera? Find an FM or FM2 if you don't like reliance on batteries.

 

[trondsi]

Yes, I have an FM in my sights, so we'll see what the guy wants for it. FM2 sounds good too if only I could find one with a working meter.

David Hancock has a channel on youtube where he talks about cameras. Was he paid? I can't know for sure, but many of the cameras he likes are way too old for anybody to pay him for the good advertisement (he also recommends the F3 for instance).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Basically a student camera. I'd far rather have (and do own) the highly reliable FM2n, or another of the classic F models. No batteries needed except for the meter function. I use a handheld meter anyway. You can get most of these fairly affordably nowadays. I also have an FM3a - the last of the
pro manual cameras; but it has some functions I consider redundant. The simpler the better.

 

[shutterfinger]

I have 2 copies of Nikkor 35-135 f3.5-4.5 AF Zooms.
Good preforming lens. I do not know about earlier or later versions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thirteenthumbs/albums 35mm B&W, 35mm Color, Kodachrome 200, and E IR C41 have images made with one of these lens.

 

[frank]

I have 2 copies of Nikkor 35-135 f3.5-4.5 AF Zooms.
Good preforming lens. I do not know about earlier or later versions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thirteenthumbs/albums 35mm B&W, 35mm Color, Kodachrome 200, and E IR C41 have images made with one of these lens.

Have you compared prints with a Nikkor prime lens of same focal length?

 

[John Koehrer]

Another not a fan of the 10 it's pretty delicate. The "pro" body Nikons, F & F2 are heavy and a little hard to find without
a metering head. When you find them with a standard prism they're a bit lighter emphasis on "a bit"
The F3 as you say is a paperweight without batteries.
You've got an FM locally and that's a very good mechanical camera. A lot of pros have used them as back ups or primary a primary camera
The fm2 is an upgrade to the FM, higher sync speed, faster shutter speed, different metering......
An FM around Chicago runs just under $100 for a clean one. There are some optimists asking $500 + their ads run for a loooooooong time.
Not knowing where you are can limit the help you get.

IF you need help finding one let me know & I can buy & ship one to you.
John

 

[shutterfinger]

Have you compared prints with a Nikkor prime lens of same focal length?

I bought one of the zooms new with an F4s. It developed fungus several years ago which I killed and cleaned but a trace of etching remained. I came across an excellent condition one at KEH at a reasonable price that I bought.
I have a newer 60mm f2.8 macro Nikkor. It will take very critical examination of the negatives to see the minute difference between them.

 

[trondsi]

Good to know that the lens is a good one, Shutterfinger. I'll check it out some more. I am hoping for sharper lenses than my current Sigma lenses (for a Minolta from the 90s). The guy selling the Nikon FM also had a more normal Nikkor lens (50 or 55mm), that was among the faster lenses I have seen (f 1.2 i think).

 

[Designervn]

very good.

 

[trondsi]

I just realized that FM2 and FM2n have 1/4000 shutter speed. I sometimes like to take pictures of birds (including hummingbirds) so that sounds good to me.

 

[shutterfinger]

Before buying the lens put a roll of slow film in the camera and make a few exposures with it/them.
Try to use subjects that have a lot of fine detail then check the negatives with a good loupe. Prints or scans can make a good lens look bad or a bad lens appear OK depending on how the prints or scans are made but the negative tells the truth.
I like my 35-135 zoom best with a 20mm extension tube between it and the camera body.

A trick to using zooms is to set it to its maximum zoom setting, focus, then zoom out to the desired shooting focal length.

 

[Prest_400]

Basically I agree to what has been said by everyone. Good camera? Any can be, but then there's the bang for the buck thing. At $250? I'd look another model. At $25? That's good!

Just to put an example, Nikon AF cameras can be gotten for real low prices. F100's for 150€, F80's with a kit zoom as low as $20 on classifields (think craigslist) and trending at 50€. F4's are in the range of F100s.
I'm talking AF as I got one of those F80s just for fun and convenience factor and I took a look at what was out there.

Primes are preferable for best possible quality. Most zooms, especially older ones, trade performance for convenience. Everyone can choose for themselves obviously, but if something is film-worthy, I'm going to compromise as little as makes sense to me.

+1. I am happy with the cheap but modern 28-80 AF-D and trading off cheapskate factor (was free!), versatility (both ways: Slower Aperture but multiple FL) and some IQ through distortion and less optimal optical performance.
I have a Fuji 6x9 and that is taking the high quality tier in my shooting.