Nikon FM2, F3, or F4?

[jmlynek]

Just wondering why you need shutter speeds faster than the F3's when shooting landscapes and architecture. Neither the hills nor the buildings move much.

 

[Stanwood_Analog]

I would say that you can also look into an FM3a

I really like the look of this camera and was briefly considering one but because they're realtively new, they're selling pretty high. A bit out of my price range unfortunately.

The ashtray is full; I need a new car.
Seriously, changing the foams is a 15-min job. Maybe even Jon Goodman has a pre-cut kit available.
Or, just plain admit GAS.

The point is I don't want to fix it because I really like the effect of light leaking in a lot of the pictures I've gotten out of it. Sometimes though (most of the time really) I'd like to be able to get a clean shot and know for sure that it will be clean. Hence the wanting two cameras.

That stated I like my Canons - T90 and A-1. Those FD lenses are superb!

Part of me thinks I should just roll with the light leaks and invest in a nicer FD lens. There's a lot of interesting stuff available. Particularly the Canon 28-85/f4. Do you have any experience with this particular lens?


Thanks for all the replies guys! I think if I do get a new camera I'll go with the F3. The question has become: If I'm going to make a point of shooting film, is there really a point to seeking the cleanest image? Should I just accept my camera's imperfections and use my money on a nice piece of glass?

 

[Cholentpot]

So on the subject of F3's now that a bunch of F3 people are in here, where would I get just my pentaprism cleaned? I have a bad spot of something (please don't be mold!) right smack dab in the middle of the focusing lines. Rest of the camera works A-ok.

 

[John Koehrer]

With regard to an earlier post that the Fm's were sold as a professional camera, that's something you must
have read on the internet*. The PRO cameras were all system machines and the less expensive cameras were generally
equivalent to the Canon "advanced amatuer" cameras.With similar price points.

*Everything you read on the internet is true.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The professional Nikons were the F, F2, F3, F4, and F5. By the time of the F6, Nikon was marketing their digital cameras to professionals and the F6, while it could be used by professionals, was not their leading pro camera.

This is what Tomohisa Ikeno of Nikon had to say:

http://www.nikonf6.net/resources/the-value-of-unique-pictures/

Anyway, it's long been known that professional photographers bought Nikkormats and FMs to augment their pro bodies, since those cameras used the same lenses and were nearly as rugged.

 

[Paul Howell]

I owned a F3P, used it for several years when I was still working as a JP, a few years ago I bought a T90 and a few Canon FD lens. I really liked the T90, sold it has I had way too many mounts and wanted to spend money on Minolta A mount. The F3 is a very good camera, easy to use, light, the motor drive is great. I never had an issue with F3s metering. Down side is low flash syc. The T90 is more advanced, but like the F3 all electronic, for best manual focus all mechanical body I would go with a F2. The other camera in the same peer group as the F3 is the Pentax LX, the only camera I also most gave up Nikon for. If I hadn't had a full set of Nikon glass would have gotten the LX rather than the F3. The F3 is the last Nikon I owned, so cant comment on the F4.

 

[shutterfinger]

With regard to an earlier post that the Fm's were sold as a professional camera, that's something you must
have read on the internet*.

try camera store sales people.

 

[destroya]

I own an FM3a, F3 and the F4 with the mb-20 small battery pack. I use the FM3a the most, then the F3 then the F4. I prefer smaller 35mm cameras and the F4 being the largest gets the least amount between the 3. All will give you great results, so dont think that the cameras will make a huge difference in your results.

 

[BradS]

With regard to an earlier post that the Fm's were sold as a professional camera, that's something you must
have read on the internet*. The PRO cameras were all system machines and the less expensive cameras were generally
equivalent to the Canon "advanced amatuer" cameras.With similar price points.

*Everything you read on the internet is true.

The professional Nikons were the F, F2, F3, F4, and F5. By the time of the F6, Nikon was marketing their digital cameras to professionals and the F6, while it could be used by professionals, was not their leading pro camera.

This is what Tomohisa Ikeno of Nikon had to say:

http://www.nikonf6.net/resources/the-value-of-unique-pictures/

Anyway, it's long been known that professional photographers bought Nikkormats and FMs to augment their pro bodies, since those cameras used the same lenses and were nearly as rugged.

try camera store sales people or pull another possibility out of your anus.

I think the point is that the FM2 was not and certainly is not a "professional" camera.
It was and is an amateur camera....possibly an "advanced amateur" camera.

 

[shutterfinger]

And the FA was marketed to Pro's as a backup camera even though it was an advanced amateur camera. (Pro photographer/instructor's word for it.)

 

[Paul Howell]

I knew many JP who used FM as their backup or at times even their primary camera. Light weight, easy to use, decent motor drive, overall good build quality. For a casual shooter meaning someone who is not shooting 10 or more rolls day day after day a well maintained FM or FM2 ought to hold up quite well. If OP intends to shoot daily or even every weekly in bad weather then the F3P or F4 will stand up much better. I could not confirm, but I recall reading that Steve Curry used a FM to shoot the girl with the green eyes.

 

[John Koehrer]

try camera store sales people.

Sales & management. Did that for years for Helix a professional oriented chain in the Chicago area.

While you're taking your head out to look around,
Find ANY documentation like advertising or better yet one of their catalogs
That Nikon said they were pro cameras Again their professional camera
were the system cameras and until the F6 had removable finders and 100% viewing area

 

[BradS]

Indeed, it seems that some are confused.
The Nikon FM, FM2 and FM3A may have been "sold to", "bought by" or "used by" professionals but these are not, never has been and never will be a professional cameras.


My mom, when she was employed by a newspaper, used a Canon Sure Shot to take pictures that were published in the paper...but surely, you wouldn't call an auto-focus, fully automatic exposure, 35mm point and shoot a "professional camera"...

 

[MattKing]

My mom, when she was employed by a newspaper, used a Canon Sure Shot...surely, you wouldn't call an auto-focus, fully automatic exposure, 35mm point and shoot a "professional camera"...

You probably can.
After all, there are people making money from Holgas.
What you probably shouldn't do is refer to many of the cameras that are used by professionals as being designed for and oriented to the professional photographer's requirements and supported under the special programs offered to professional photographers.
The sort of cameras that companies like Nikon and Canon provide extra, extensive support for when used by recognized professional photographers.
The sort of people who are able to borrow things like fast 500mm lenses when they are working at the Olympics.
In reference to modern day equipment, an owner (in Canada) of a $4,200.00 CDN Canon 5d Mark IV (body only) cannot obtain "professional" support from Canon in Canada, whether or not they have recognized professional credentials. However, if that photographer owns a $7,400.00 CDN Canon EOS 1DX Mark II (body only) they can obtain "professional" support from Canon in Canada, if they have recognized professional credentials.

 

[flavio81]

. The other camera in the same peer group as the F3 is the Pentax LX, .

As a proud owner of a F3 and two Canon New F-1s, you're forgetting about the F-1. It is in some aspects better than the F3, and it was its direct competition.

I haven't used the Pentax LX but i'm a huge fan of the MX, which is a masterpiece.

 

[flavio81]

Part of me thinks I should just roll with the light leaks and invest in a nicer FD lens. There's a lot of interesting stuff available. Particularly the Canon 28-85/f4. Do you have any experience with this particular lens?

If the zoom groups move smoothly without play (or rattle if you shake the lens), then it should perform just fine. FD zoom lenses are very good, and the constant-aperture ones were the upper-class of them. The 35-105/3.5 is very good so i'd expect the 28-85/4 to be as good, considering the zoom ratio and aperture.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... i'm a huge fan of the MX, which is a masterpiece.

How would you rate it against the KX, which is larger but has mirror lock-up?

 

[Ste_S]

Thanks for all the replies guys! I think if I do get a new camera I'll go with the F3. The question has become: If I'm going to make a point of shooting film, is there really a point to seeking the cleanest image? Should I just accept my camera's imperfections and use my money on a nice piece of glass?

If you're going to be shooting on a body that's leaking light, then I probably wouldn't bother buying nice glass for it.

I'd get your Canon serviced and light seals replaced. Get a Holga or Diana instead if you like the effect that light leaks have on film - they're cheap, light and small.

 

[Chan Tran]

How would you rate it against the KX, which is larger but has mirror lock-up?

I have used both, although I don't have the MX any more, and I think they are about the same. The MX has motor drive (but it would be difficult to get the 5fps motor drive for the MX) and the KX has mirror lock up. It's hard to choose between them. If you make me choose I think I would pick the MX (but why do I still have 2 KX's and sold the MX?).

 

[cooltouch]

I've never owned an FM2 (or FM2n), but I own an FE2, which I prefer. The fact that it requires a couple of A76s doesn't bother me. They're almost as ubiquitous as AAs. I like the FE2 (and FE) because they use a match-needle meter, which I've always preferred. Nikon's good old 60-40 metering pattern is used in the FE2 and is sufficient for about 95% of most situations. If you like to use a motor drive, the MD12 is really hard to beat. Fast enough, compact, and very ergonomic. If not having enough slow speed range bothers you, do like us old-timers do. Set the camera on B, use a cable release, and count "one thousand one, one thousand two . . . " etc.

The F3 is also a great choice. Same batteries, better motor drive option. It gives away one notch in top shutter speed, but so what? I don't care for the meter display but I do like that it has a tighter pattern than the FM2 -- 80-20, which makes it more accurate to use when set to Aperture Priority, I've found. As for the lack of hot shoe, not really an issue. You can buy an AS-4 for non-TTL work or an AS-17 for TTL to convert the F3's hook-up to an ISO shoe, or just use the PC sync port. The F3 is a slick,ergonomic tool that managed to keep the working pros busy for over a decade -- until the advent of the F4, and not all switched over when it came out.

The F4 is an interesting mix of new and old. Nikon decided to keep knobs and switches rather than LCD displays -- for the exterior at least -- which many of us appreciate. Sure, it's battery dependent -- but it takes "AA"s which can be found anywhere that civilization exists, and I suspect many places where it doesn't. The F4 will do just about anything you want. To me its biggest drawbacks are its primitive AF system and its weight. Although it is very ergonomic, so I don't really notice the weight when I'm carrying it. But I think this is because of all the years I lugged around cameras with big motor drives (Canon F-1s with MD MFs and Nikon F2s with MD2/MB1s). As long as you don't ask too much from its AF system, it'll be fine. Besides you can always get used to using a plain matte screen (which is what I've done) and shoot MF with it.

So, which to choose? Well, if it were me, and if I had the room, I'd pack all three so that I'd have exactly what I'd need when the situation arose. But that's just me, since I own all three (well, an FE2 instead of an FM2, but close enough). But I understand you're trying to decide on which to choose. Just let me say this -- since it appears that you're changing systems from Canon FD to Nikon, eventually you will find that you need more than one camera. In which case you might be well served to go back and ponder these three options, then select from them your next Nikon. And time will pass where you'll decide you need another camera, so you might yet end up with all three. Besides, there's also the F2 that you haven't mentioned, but surely can't be too far away in your thinking. And lots of others, really. The Fs, the Nikkormats, all the compact models, and all the AF models, too, many of which have much better AF systems than the F4.

 

[elmartinj]

My two cents is I've got an FM, and that for a while, I've never really thought of needing anything else from a camera.