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

[logan2z]

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

 

[chip j]

IMHO, rangefinders are at their best w/wide-angles & normal lenses. An SLR-esp a gorgeous Nikon-will take you anywhere!

 

[reddesert]

The Nikon FM or FE with a 50/1.8 are a classic compact SLR and arguably about the high point of simple-classic-SLR user interface (before things got more push-buttony). Plus you can get one for almost nothing, relative to Leica anything. The FM2, FE2, and FA add a few features and are a bit more expensive (but still a lot cheaper than in film's heyday). I know you mentioned the FM; personally I prefer the FE's meter display, but this is a matter of taste. The FE batteries last nearly forever and there is a mechanical shutter speed, so that's not a big deal. The FM is the only one that doesn't have an interchangeable focusing screen, so if you get one make sure that's clean. Do check to make sure the meter works; even if you already use a handheld meter, TTL metering is part of the SLR experience.

The problem with Nikons is that there is a nearly infinite variety of compatible or semi-compatible used gear that is now very reasonably priced, so it's murder on GAS, but you can experiment like crazy.

 

[BrianShaw]

Don’t resist the urge!

 

[bdial]

The Rangefinder Forum has a section for SLR's, just say'n.
Try one, you may like it. With the modern pricing on 35mm SLR's, it's not much money to give things a try, you could easily spend more on a few rolls of film.
In the world of Nikon there are about 3 zillion different models to choose from, quite a number of them can use any of the 10 zillion lenses they've made since the 1960's. You might be able to put together a kit for less than what a Leica lens cap will cost you.

 

[guangong]

You may appreciate the tank- like build and reliability of a simple nonmetered F or F2 with plain prism. Makes a very compact unit with little to go wrong because computer resides in you head.

 

[AgX]

One point to make is that the mechanical Nikons and their respective lenses are more rare and expensive than other brands (at least over here), as for instance the Canon FD range. You might consider this if there is a chance that you start a complete system. Otherwise, as already said above, start with any SLR you feel attracted too. If you have the chance, by time take as many different models in hand.

 

[Les Sarile]

Well, if it's only a temporary condition, then perhaps a loaner would be a good solution before you start going down that rabbit hole?
If you're in my neck of the woods, I would be interested in using an interchangeable lens range finder myself.

 

[BradS]

I have a couple of Leica rangefinder bodies/lenses ........

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

Yes, yes, YES!

I went the other direction - having Nikons, I wanted to try a Leica. My last road trip, I took a Nikon F2 and the little Leica iiif. I like em both. They’re very complimentary systems.

 

[Paul Howell]

+ 1 with BradS, a SLR has it strong points as does a rangefinder. Nikon F became the standard for photo journalist for a number of reasons, good build quality large range of lens, later models cold be modified for a motor drive, bulk film back, interchangeable screen and prims. Nikon was the first to produces any of these features, but was the first to put together the package. I carried a Leica IIIG or Canon 7s, along with a F, later F2, F3., kF2. So take the plunge, if you don't like a SLR you can always sell it.

 

[Kino]

This is a serious first sign of "GAS", which ignored, could result in impacted closets, midnight ramblings on Ebay and spousal or relationship troubles.

Tread carefully...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I bought a Nikon F Photomic T when they came out in 1965 when I was stationed in Japan in the USAF. I paid $149 there while it was around $500 in the states. When I got home, I lost it and my Nikon 50mm f1.4 and 135mm lenses in a NYC subway. If you happen to find it, I would like to get it back. I miss it.

 

[Chan Tran]

Nothing wrong. Back in the old days photojounalists use to carry a couple of Nikon SLR's and a Leica M.

 

[logan2z]

You guys might have missed the "talk me off the ledge" part . There's a nice looking black FM for sale on my local Craigslist for a decent price. I might give it a go.

 

[narsuitus]

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

Going over the ledge makes a lot of sense.

For decades, I used an SLR system and a rangefinder system. The two systems compliment each other.

I primarily used the rangefinder when I had to shoot quickly and quietly.

I have three lenses for my Leica rangefinder (21mm, 35mm, and 90mm) and four lenses for my Contax rangefinder (21mm, 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm).

I primarily used the SLR when I had to shoot subjects that were difficult for the rangefinder.

I have the following lenses for my Nikon SLR:
a. ultra wide angle (14mm and 18mm)
b. long telephoto (135mm, 180mm, 400mm, 500mm, and 1000mm)
c. zoom lenses (14-24mm, 28-70mm, and 80-200mm)
d. special purpose (macro, perspective control, and fisheye)



Leica M6 & Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Jim Jones]

I've used Leica rangefinders since 1953 and Nikon SLRs since 1967. The systems complement each other. The early Nikon F light meter was monstrous, but the camera with a plain prism was my standard for macro and telephoto photography. Even the Nikkormat was a reliable second SLR. There never seemed to be much reason to move up to a FM or other later body.

 

[BradS]

You guys might have missed the "talk me off the ledge" part .

You’ll get none of that here!

 

[Pieter12]

Jump! SLRs excel with very long and very short focal length lenses as well as the availability of zoom lenses, very accurate focusing and framing (at least with Nikon Fs that have a 100% viewfinder). Downside is size & weight, loudness and vibration from the mirror movement, as compared to a rangefinder. Slow lenses with a SLR offer dimmer viewfinder images, a disadvantage you don't have to consider with a rangefinder camera.

 

[BMbikerider]

Nikon Manual cameras are well worthwhile buying - they are so good. The electronic ones Fe/Fa/FE2/FE3/F3 are also very good but if a fault develops in the electronics, spares will be almost unobtainable. Any of the Nikkormat manual cameras are good, (but the later electronic ones can be in a worse situation than the FE models) A FM/FM2/FM2n and any of the Nikon F models up to the last F2 editions will give a lifetime of reliable use. There can be a problem with the metering on these earlier ones but the F2 models can be completely rebuilt.

 

[Kino]

You’ll get none of that here!

I gave a feeble attempt, but my heart wasn't in it!

 

[abruzzi]

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.

 

[JWMster]

FWIW, when the bug bit, I kept the Leicas, picked up Nikon FM2n and F100 (and even a Nikon D750). Funded with sale of a bunch of Sony gear and Zeiss Loxia lenses. Yes... somewhat backwards (or at least reverse) relative to what everyone else is doing... but isn't that the point? Fun stuff. The FM2n is quite small, and the F100 quite auto, the D lenses are sweet and work well everywhere... and if you've picked up a couple of grandchildren which is indeed a different kind of gas so to speak.... you'll know why you need some AF back in your life. Will soon be trying Negative Solutions scanning equip with same as an alternative to Nikon LS8000 which is sadly long in the tooth and.... more slowed by time than I am.

Talk off the ledge? Are you serious? Ledge? What l
.......................................................................................e
...........................................................................................d
................................................................................................g
....................................................................................................e
........................................................................................................?

 

[darkosaric]

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 makes sense, of course. I have Leica M3, M6 and IIIf, and I have Nikon F, F2, F3, F801 and F80. Nikon cameras are cheap, and great. Go for it!

 

[AgX]

Slow lenses with a SLR offer dimmer viewfinder images, a disadvantage you don't have to consider with a rangefinder camera.

However maybe these slow lenses are just of those focal lengths that cannot be applied usefully one a rangefinder camera.

(I still have to do a comparison between RF and SLR cameras from various periods concerning finder brightness.)

 

[__Brian]

The FM is about the same size as a Nikon Rangefinder. The original FM is down to ~$50, at least that's what I paid for one in good working/user condition. Pick up a 50/2 Ai, 105/2.5, and 35/2- you would be all set- and for less money than most RF lenses..