Not sure why but I'm suddenly craving a classic Nikon SLR

[dourbalistar]

To me, there is nothing like the feel of the Nikkormat FT series cameras. They feels as solid (if not more so) than my F2. And the old, non-AI lenses are brilliant and (compared to later AI and AI-S lenses) cheap. I just got a near perfect condition 105/2.5 (the older sonnar version) for $40 shipped.

I was in the same GAS predicament as the OP last year. Coming from Leica RF, I dipped my toe into the Nikon F realm by way of the Nikomat FTn. I pieced together a kit with the Nikkor-H Auto 50mm f/2 non-AI for around $100. I figured if I didn't like it, I wouldn't be out too much money. Perfectly solid camera, but with the shutter speed dial around the lens mount similar to the Olympus OM-1. Less cumbersome in practice than I originally thought, but something to consider. Earlier this year, I found a Nikon FM2n with 55/1.2, and the Nikomat has sat unused since.

 

[mshchem]

I've got all of the mentioned classic bodies, they are beautiful things. When I shoot 35mm film I pass by these and a nice M6ttl and grab a F5. The last one picked up as a spare flawless for 350 bucks.
If you want undeniable eye candy plain prism F and F2 is the way to go. I got out one of my F2 bodies with the MD-2 motor last night just to listen to the magical sound. It's still used for sound fx today.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You want it, you deserve it, you will use it, you will enjoy it, so by all means go and buy it. When you are born you are given an 84 inch long piece of wood, how far are you from the end of it?

 

[Ariston]

Do like me and buy a broken one. I have a broken FM2 (flash shoe doesn't work), and a broken FM (meter doesn't work). I enjoy both immensely. Oddly, the mirror slap in the older FM is much softer.

I doubt you'll get more enjoyment out of $30 anywhere else. What is that? One night at the movies? Just buy a broken Nikon and enjoy.

 

[eddie]

Whenever I think about a purchase, I ask myself, "do you think it will make you produce more satisfying photographs?" Usually the answer is no, but I know more film and paper will.

 

[abruzzi]

Earlier this year, I found a Nikon FM2n with 55/1.2, and the Nikomat has sat unused since.

I have a FM2n as well, but I seem to grab the Nikkormat more frequently.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have a FM2n as well, but I seem to grab the Nikkormat more frequently.

Why?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

The FM2n is a jewel of a camera.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I'll throw a wrench in the works. An Olympus OM-1 isn't much larger than a rangefinder. Great optics and built like a tank. Another option in the same size package is the OM2n, electronic shutter and amazing accurate auto metering, aperture priority, with real time off the film metering. The electronics in these don't give issues. The OM-1 is all mechanical but needs special batteries or an adapter to use the meter, the OM2n uses easy to get batteries. Both have a fantastic viewfinder with interchangeable screens.

 

[mshchem]

I'll throw a wrench in the works. An Olympus OM-1 isn't much larger than a rangefinder. Great optics and built like a tank. Another option in the same size package is the OM2n, electronic shutter and amazing accurate auto metering, aperture priority, with real time off the film metering. The electronics in these don't give issues. The OM-1 is all mechanical but needs special batteries or an adapter to use the meter, the OM2n uses easy to get batteries. Both have a fantastic viewfinder with interchangeable screens.

Lovely camera the OM-1. My only issue is my clumsy big hands. I even have problems with my Leica M6ttl, I'm ok with the 50mm Summicron, but I bought a Zeiss 35 2.8 new made in Japan, I can barely focus the lens it's so tiny.

 

[wyofilm]

Range finders are great, but if you want to shake things up a bit an SLR is the way to go. Start shooting macro or telephoto lens and new worlds of subjects and compositions show up. My favorite Nikon is the Nikon FM3a. A bit pricey though and really doesn't much more than an FE for example.

 

[darkosaric]

I use Nikon not only because SLR can do what range finder cannot, but also because of some unique lenses that one can use, for example 105/2.5 (both versions), 55/3.5 micro, or 180/2.8 ED.
For me perfect travel setup is M3 with DR Summicron, and F body with 105/2.5.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a couple of Leica rangefinder bodies/lenses that I love to use and I'm not typically prone to GAS, but for some reason I'm suddenly craving a Nikon FM or FM2. Maybe it's because I came to photography only in the last few years and never had a chance to own some of the classic film cameras like the FM, or maybe having used rangefinders exclusively I'm curious to see what it's like to shoot an SLR. The fact that these cameras and lenses are fairly cheap now is a bonus - I can try one and maybe get it out of my system with little investment.

Does it make any sense to buy into an SLR system like the Nikon when I'm already invested in rangefinders? I need someone to talk me off the ledge

one definately needs to have experienced both to know ones preference. I much prefer an SLR over a rangefinder; like to see what I'll get on film before pushing the release and Nikon's lens quality is truly one of the bes even in old inexpensive lenses.

 

[abruzzi]

Why?

I like the feel of it more, and I like the weight. It feels more indestructible.

Also, I prefer the needle to the led for the meter.

EDIT: thinking about it more, it occurs to me that I also have a better collection of pre-AI primes, than AI primes. My AI primes are mostly series E which are nice, but don’t feel as nice. It may not be a huge difference, but I really love my pre AI glass.

 

[Ste_S]

Has this been resolved yet and the OP has bought a FM ?

If not, buy one, they're (relatively) cheap and fantastic cameras. I have a black FE with 35/50/135 Nikkors and the MD12 motordrive and love it.

 

[logan2z]

Has this been resolved yet and the OP has bought a FM ?

I haven't bought one yet but I'm likely going to buy a black FM that is for sale locally. Given the going rate and the camera's reputation (echoed repeatedly in this thread) I can't see a reason not to.

 

[NB23]

I don’t know how Leica achieved to hypnotize so many people into the snobbery and gear superiority BS . It’s worth to point out that Nikon is the real deal: by far the most pulitzer and prize winning photography in the world, ever, has come out from Nikons.
All the newspaper photography and visual pollution came out from Nikons. Nikon were so great that is they who killed the Rangefinder market and created the slr market. Their cameras are so great they hardly break. You could wash a nikon S3/P or Nikon F in running water, even drown it, leave it to dry and continue using it like nothing happened.

Sure, I love Leica, but if we put the romantic Leica bullSheath aside, Nikon is simply King Kong. You can never go wrong with a FM2 and FE2 or whichever classic Nikon.

 

[benveniste]

Does it make any sense to buy into an SLR system like the Nikon when I'm already invested in rangefinders? I need someone to talk me off the ledge

It really depends on your shooting preferences and style. If you don't use filters very much, prefer prime lenses in the focal lengths available to you on a rangefinder system, and prefer a more deliberate, compositional style of photography then an SLR like the FM or FM2 may not open new horizons for you.

OTOH, more than 50% of my photography with an FM, FM2, or FA has been with zoom lenses. When the FM was my primary camera, my most commonly used zoom lenses were a 24-40mm f/2.8 and an 80-200mm. Both of those lenses are long gone, but even today when the FA comes out to play the 80-200mm f/4 AI-s comes along for the ride. So my suggestion is that you think about what you can do differently with an SLR and whether those are things you want to do.

 

[AgX]

It’s worth to point out that Nikon is the real deal: by far the most pulitzer and prize winning photography in the world, ever, has come out from Nikons.
All the newspaper photography and visual pollution came out from Nikons. Nikon were so great that is they who killed the Rangefinder market and created the slr market.

However in sales numbers Nikon were loosers. They are far behind with their classic SLRs behind Zenits, A's and Prakticas. The first Nikon shows up at place 10 and that is not even an F. And these numbers not even contain the chinese SLRs which might put back Nikon even further.

 

[BradS]

However in sales numbers Nikon were loosers. They are far behind with their classic SLRs behind Zenits, A's and Prakticas. The first Nikon shows up at place 10 and that is not even an F. And these numbers not even contain the chinese SLRs which might put back Nikon even further.

C'mon...this seems like a straw man argument, at best....
was a Nikon SLR even available in the FSU ?
surely more Pentax K-1000 were produced and sold than Nikon F but that certainly does not imply that the Pentax was a better camera.
What percentage of professional photo journalists, worldwide, carried a Nikon in say, 1968~1979?
What percentage of photographs published in National Geographic during the same time period were exposed in a Nikon?
I'd like to see the data...

 

[Sirius Glass]

C'mon...this seems like a straw man argument, at best....
was a Nikon SLR even available in the FSU ?
surely more Pentax K-1000 were produced and sold than Nikon F but that certainly does not imply that the Pentax was a better camera.
What percentage of professional photo journalists, worldwide, carried a Nikon in say, 1968~1979?
What percentage of photographs published in National Geographic during the same time period were exposed in a Nikon?
I'd like to see the data...

+1

I never stayed awake at night with a burning desire to have a FSU camera or lens. I use Nikons for 35mm and Hasselblads for 6x6. You will not see no stinkin' pinko commie lenses on my equipment. I like equipment that actually works and does not have to be sent out to be rebuilt before using.

 

[StepheKoontz]

+1
I like equipment that actually works and does not have to be sent out to be rebuilt before using.

+100 I was all in trying to use Kiev 6X6 gear when 'blad stuff was stratospheric in price. I wasted more money trying to find a rebuilt kiev camera that would actually work (and wasted film/processing), I probably could have bought 2 'blad systems.

 

[AgX]

C'mon...this seems like a straw man argument, at best....
was a Nikon SLR even available in the FSU ?
surely more Pentax K-1000 were produced and sold than Nikon F but that certainly does not imply that the Pentax was a better camera.
What percentage of professional photo journalists, worldwide, carried a Nikon in say, 1968~1979?
What percentage of photographs published in National Geographic during the same time period were exposed in a Nikon?
I'd like to see the data...

I did not question those facts, but there is use at most professionals and some amateurs, and there is market share. I do not see referring to that as lame.
That Nikon got that leadership in the US market in the 50s to my mind for a great part was due to non-technical reason. Of course on that success they could build further technical development.

West-Germany never had something to compete. East-Germany twice had. One model came too early, the market was not yet ripe, the other model came too late, the dices were already thrown.

I got a photo of a 70s soviet photo-journalist using a Nikon. Also of a Linhofs being used. (Which of course does not say that they were available within the USSR, but there were professional who got them.)

 

[logan2z]

It really depends on your shooting preferences and style. If you don't use filters very much, prefer prime lenses in the focal lengths available to you on a rangefinder system, and prefer a more deliberate, compositional style of photography then an SLR like the FM or FM2 may not open new horizons for you.

OTOH, more than 50% of my photography with an FM, FM2, or FA has been with zoom lenses. When the FM was my primary camera, my most commonly used zoom lenses were a 24-40mm f/2.8 and an 80-200mm. Both of those lenses are long gone, but even today when the FA comes out to play the 80-200mm f/4 AI-s comes along for the ride. So my suggestion is that you think about what you can do differently with an SLR and whether those are things you want to do.

My shooting style/preferences are definitely inline with rangefinders and that's why I gravitated towards them. I think I find the Nikon appealing mostly because it seems to be a well-designed, well-built, fully mechanical camera from the 'golden age' of photography and, being a devotee of analog photography, it's just something I'd like to own. I may not actually use it all that much but it would be nice to have it in the stable. That may sound silly but there it is...

 

[narsuitus]

@logan2z:

I know a number of photographers who started with SLRs but could not adjust to rangefinders.

I do not know any photographers who started with rangefinders but could not adjust to SLRs.

Please let me know how well you adjust.