Nikon FM3a vs Leica M7

[Theo Sulphate]

...I paid $1,100 for my F100 in 2001, $525 for my FM3A in 2002 but yet the FM3A gets blasted or shunned by the amateur photographer bargain hunters because it has retained it's value ( for better or worse ) better than many Nikon bodies.

The funny thing is that the FM3A is actually not fancy at all, just functional. If it were in the $50-$200 price range that many folks on here seem to not want to spend more than on a used Nikon body, it would be heralded as the greatest thing ever.......says a lot about the enthusiast film crowd I guess.
P
Amateur photographers don't understand the FM3A and likely never will.

The FM3a is the cat's meow: great functionality and versatility in a body that's under 20 years old.

 

[nolanr66]

Since I cannot find a FM2n to even consider I am going to look for an FM10.