Nikon FM2N or FM3A, which one to get?

[Vsanzbajo]

I got the XD 11. I love it. I have been using it, and really like it. I have been bitten by the camera bug.

Like you almost got the XD-11 . . .



Believe me I am not one to judge as I cannot choose just one camera . . .

Of course your price with that lens sounds like a good deal to me provided lens is clean and camera is fully functional.

 

[brucemuir]

I am quite sure 4 bills for a BNIB FM2N - especially a black body, would be a bargain.

Yea mayyybe a black one...
Users go for 150-200 in the US with clean ones for around 200 and some change sometime

 

[Les Sarile]

Users go for 150-200 in the US with clean ones for around 200 and some change sometime

Much like anything else, there are definitely cheaper versions available. No doubt BNIB may mean different things to the seller vs the buyer . . . ;-)

 

[Pumalite]

Might be a disaster for them, but not for us.

 

[cluttered]

I have been offered a FM2N and a FM3A both mint. The FM3A is more expensive. Is it worth the difference?

I've got the opposite problem; I already have both the FM2N and FM3A, and I keep meaning to get rid of one of them but still can't decide! (I really like both of them but it doesn't make sense to keep both...)

Anyway, to answer your question if you can afford it I'd go for the FM3A (it'll be much newer and hence have more life left in the seals etc) plus the aperture priority can be handy depending on your style of shooting. But if you go with the FM2N you'll still have a great camera. You really can't go wrong with either.

 

[2F/2F]

Considering what Fs, F2s, and F3s cost, I would say that 4 bills is at least 2x too much to pay for any "lower" model. But we all have different priorities. Personally, I'd rather have an older, but more "professional" model most of the time...or even an older amateur model like a Nikkormat. But in-camera metering is of no importance to me for most of what I shoot; to many, it is.

 

[brucemuir]

Yes, Nikkormats are around 20-25 dollars these days.

Talk about an underrated body.

 

[2F/2F]

Yes, Nikkormats are around 20-25 dollars these days.

Talk about an underrated body.

It really is insane how little they cost. With those four bills, one could get Nikkormat with a lens or two, a CLA (though probably not needed), and an incident light meter...and be so much better off in terms of exposure to boot.

I got my outstanding-condition F Photomic T with three cased lenses with hoods (35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/3.5), original cased and boxed Nikon filters, and proper Nikon cable release for $350 from Photo dot net classifieds. I added a 24mm f/2.8 lens from E-Bay for $50, near mint. I added my black F Photomic FTn to the kit for $140 from a pawn shop. Then I got a Nikkormat with three lenses (50mm f/1.4, and Vivitar 28mm and 135mm f.2.8), an enlarger with a Schneider lens, a Yashica D, and an old leather case full of Zeiss film/plate holders and filters, all for $100 at an estate sale. I sold the 50mm lens for $40 and the Yashica D for $25. The Vivitar lenses and Zeiss holders have proved harder to sell, but in the end I think I will actually make more than $100 from selling the unneeded stuff from the lot. So, in the end, I have a four lens, three body professional-quality SLR kit and the enlarger to print the film for $575 (plus two Vivitar lenses and some Zeiss holders, which will be sold eventually). Crazy! And none of these cameras have ever failed me in any way or needed any type of service performed or expenditures on batteries. In light of this, yes, I would say that 4 bills is quite out of hand for a later amateur body alone.

 

[brucemuir]

Yea,
I got a clean BLACK FT2 with a 50 f/2 H for 40 dollars last week.
Just what I need. hahaha.

I really wanted to try the 50 H for the hell of it and it'd cheaper to get one attached to a Nikkormat then it is to get it by itself.

 

[Les Sarile]

In light of this, yes, I would say that 4 bills is quite out of hand for a later amateur body alone.

Then it is likely you'll pass on something like this -> Nikon FM2/T Dog Edition

 

[Chan Tran]

The current going price of the FM3a is way too high but well it's worth what people are willing to pay for. For me any of the F series camera would be a better camera than the FM3a. I meant the F, F2, F3, F4 or F5. For the price of a typical FM3a one can buy any of the above mentioned pro cameras except may be the F2AS version of the F2.

 

[mohawk51]

XD-11? Thought you were choosing between an FM2N and a FM3A? Anyway, I use my FM2N as my primary and my F3T as a backup in case I need automation. How's that for a switch?...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have both cameras and prefer the FM2n-T to my FM3A. Minor differences, but the meter in the latter is difficult to use in low light. Both are fully mechanical so will operate without a battery at all,
except for the meter and its semi-automated function in the 3A (which I never use anyway). But
then, I have difficulty figuring out any camera which doesn't need a darkcloth!

 

[John_Nikon_F]

FM2n has been my choice. If I want something that has aperture priority, an FE2 works great, if I want an FM3a-like interface. Otherwise, the F4 works better.

edit: @Chan Tran - heck, an F2AS is a bargain compared to an FM3a. My F2AS was only $225.00. 1/2 the cost of the cheapest FM3a I've seen.

-J

 

[skahde]

FE2s start to grow old. Look through the junk sink... err meant to say ebay, there show up more and more which are advertised as dead. The FM2 in comparison will not withstand hard use like the F-Series but they seam to age gracefully with only the seals beeing the usual problem.

with this in mind I would no longer recommend to get a FE2 as an alternative to the FM3a although I love mine.

 

[Les Sarile]

I wish I had a 1981 Pentax ME-F with the autofocus lens to add to this lineup as that and the FM3A are such anomalies . . .