Old film camera vs new film camera

[Ai Print]

I have the FM3a and I think it is one of the best cameras Nikon has ever made. It gets a pretty good bashing by people who don't find it's unique feature set to be a big selling point but for me when I bought it new in 2002, I thought it was just what I was looking for then and would now.

I have 5 Nikon bodies, the FM3a, F3, F100 and two "D" models. The FM3a would the the last one I would get rid of.

 

[Chan Tran]

There isn't much difference between the 2 cameras provided they are not broken. However, if by quality you meant exposure and you rely on the meter to set your exposure then there can be significant different and I can't say which one will give you better exposure. Also even if you use handheld meter or determine exposure yourself the shutter speed can be off.

 

[guangong]

Why would anybody want to buy a new camera when there are still so many "new" cameras still coming to the used market. Many a physicians or lawyers wife would walk into a camera store to buy the "best" camera for hubby. Best meant most expensive, which back then meant totally manual professional grade cameras. Hubby couldn't be bothered with f stops and camera was retired to closet. Now these closets are being cleaned out and their usually unused cameras dribble to the used market. Quality much better than now new.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have the FM3a and I think it is one of the best cameras Nikon has ever made. It gets a pretty good bashing by people who don't find it's unique feature set to be a big selling point but for me when I bought it new in 2002, I thought it was just what I was looking for then and would now.

In a Pop Photo 2002 ad, they list a black FM2 for $479, chrome FM3A for $459 and a black FM3A for $489.

I am certain people aren't bashing the FM3A for it's unique properties more so then the price difference.

 

[farmersteve]

Why would anybody want to buy a new camera when there are still so many "new" cameras still coming to the used market. Many a physicians or lawyers wife would walk into a camera store to buy the "best" camera for hubby. Best meant most expensive, which back then meant totally manual professional grade cameras. Hubby couldn't be bothered with f stops and camera was retired to closet. Now these closets are being cleaned out and their usually unused cameras dribble to the used market. Quality much better than now new.

I agree if you want to buy a new fully manual camera, why bother with all the great cameras out there. But if you want to take advantage of all the advances in computing power and autofocusing and such, wouldn't be nice to have a camera with the latest and greatest technology? I know there are a lot of people here the disdain it, but not everyone does.

 

[Ai Print]

In a Pop Photo 2002 ad, they list a black FM2 for $479, chrome FM3A for $459 and a black FM3A for $489. I am certain people aren't bashing the FM3A for it's unique properties more so then the price difference.

Yeah, that was like ten bucks then, now it is more like a $100-$200 difference depending on condition. For example, FM2N's in good clean condition with a bit of brassing go for $150-$250, FM3A's in the same condition go for $300-$380. Put either camera in the mint category and there is less of a difference, about $75 to $150 and often about the same. BTW, I got mine from B&H in June of 2002, it was $525.

The big differences between the FM2N and the FM3A is that there were a *lot* less FM3A's made and they truly are a step above the FM2N or FE2.

The reasons it is a step above is that very remarkable hybrid shutter, an achievement of having a really great step-less auto mode with exposure lock and TTL flash that has it's own dedicated -1 stop comp button. Then....if the battery goes kaput, you still have a fully workable shutter speed range including still being able to sync at 1/250th. The meter in auto by the way is amazingly good, hitting the target with exposures well into the minutes. Shooting tons of cold weather and mountaineering, I indeed have had the battery go and just kept right on cooking. The finder is also noticeably better, being brighter and having a screen that is as good as a Beattie but seemingly sharper in my experience. Another not well known change is how well sealed up the PCB boards are on the FM3A, a move Nikon did to ensure it would not short out due to condensation if taken indoors after being in prolonged cold weather. Lots of improvements were done to the FM3A as a last in the line tribute to a size and build of Nikon that won the accolades of millions of enthusiasts and pros alike. In my direct experience, it's an FM2 sized and styled body that is in another league.

As I said before, it is probably Nikon's most misunderstood and bashed camera by enthusiasts. I have been using Nikons in my career full time for nearly 30 years, the FM3A has been one of the best cameras I have ever used in any format by any maker....I ought to get another one because they are so cheap right now.

 

[Dali]

Why would anybody want to buy a new camera when there are still so many "new" cameras still coming to the used market.

Because buying used cameras is kind of russian roulette... I can understand someone wanting to get something reliable for the next 10 or 15 years... Honestly, if Olympus could still produce the OM1, I would buy one right now. Mine I bought used 6 years ago is between John Hermanson's hands for the second time (shutter adjustment 5 year ago, mirror issue now)... A 30/40 years old camera is a 30/40 years old camera and being stored in a cabinet does not change anything.

 

[sepiareverb]

They're pretty much identical. Minor electronic differences. Get a better or different focal length lens to see a difference.

 

[Ai Print]

They're pretty much identical. Minor electronic differences. Get a better or different focal length lens to see a difference.

From the standpoint of what is going to lead to a better photo, yes. But beyond that, read my last post above, hardly the same.

 

[sepiareverb]

From the standpoint of what is going to lead to a better photo, yes. But beyond that, read my last post above, hardly the same.

If I still used an SLR I'd want the FM3a, no question. For many people I'd suspect the differences in build quality are likely immaterial, given one gets a clean example of either. Didn't know about the PCB sealing, a nice touch for those of us in the cold climes.

 

[blockend]

Because buying used cameras is kind of russian roulette... I can understand someone wanting to get something reliable for the next 10 or 15 years... Honestly, if Olympus could still produce the OM1, I would buy one right now. Mine I bought used 6 years ago is between John Hermanson's hands for the second time (shutter adjustment 5 year ago, mirror issue now)... A 30/40 years old camera is a 30/40 years old camera and being stored in a cabinet does not change anything.

Unless you're buying a film Leica, a Nikon F6 or a couple of other 35mm models, the new camera will be new in name only. Chances are once the warranty runs out you're on your own, no parts or manufacturer servicing. This puts the camera in the same position as a used camera.

 

[Dali]

I am not sure any manufacturer has any commitment of any kind to repair a 40 years old camera or even provide spare parts.

Whatever camera bought new, one can assume to use it several years before even thinking of CLA. I am not sure any used camera buyer to be in the same mood as he signs the check...

 

[John_Nikon_F]

FM3a is essentially an FE2 that has mechanical shutter speeds in manual mode, plus some updates. Really should've been called the FE3m.

With respect to the importance of things, I'd have to revise it a little...

1) Photographer
2) Lens
3) Film
4) Body

Reason being is that you're probably going to get equal results out of an FE or an FM3a, or for that matter an EL2, provided the other three things are the same. Once you change the film, things get different. Same with the lens, or the mindset of the photographer.

-J

 

[blockend]

With respect to the importance of things, I'd have to revise it a little...

1) Photographer
2) Lens
3) Film
4) Body

Agreed. I flip between Leica rangefinder, consumer AF SLRs, plastic point and shoots and all points between, and the subject is the single biggest factor in deciding whether the shot is any good. Familiarity with a camera is also important, as the ability to instinctively know the settings can be the difference between a missed shot and a classic.

 

[Diapositivo]

With respect to the importance of things, I'd have to revise it a little...

1) Photographer
2) Lens
3) Film
4) Body

I think it can be compared to the kitchen, where the quality of the ingredients and the accuracy of the preparation are directly detectable in the final result, while the versatility/quality of the set of knives, the quality/versatility of the oven, the quality of the pans is not immediately noticeable, they are a factor in the background, certainly relevant but normally not decisive.
Yet, if you want a good pizza, you need an oven capable of reaching 350 - 400 °C, tools sometimes matter a lot, and by comparison in photography sometimes a TTL-flash or a waist-level viewfinder can make a difficult work easier and easily better.

 

[Huss]

I am not sure any manufacturer has any commitment of any kind to repair a 40 years old camera or even provide spare parts.

Leica does. They still make spare parts for the M3/M2 etc series cameras going back to the 1950s. And have announced that they will start making new frame sets for the M5 series cameras.

 

[Copyhat]

I bought a Nikon FM2/T yesterday, and it feels like new - it wasn't the intention to get the titanium clad version but it popped up at $320 almost locally. I would still try to find an FM3A to replace a Nikkormat FT2, but that is more my inner collector shining through!

I think you guys are sooo behind the curve you can't even see hipsterville from there. Hipsters have moved on to real film cameras along with their reel to reel tape decks, and vinyl records.

Reel to reel is here to stay - the remnants of BASF and Ampex are still going strong, and Revox has just announced their first new model in 25 years!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I bought a Nikon FM2/T yesterday, and it feels like new - it wasn't the intention to get the titanium clad version but it popped up at $320 almost locally. ...

Wow... that is a good deal.

Is that a lens hood for an EF 35 IS USM?

 

[farmersteve]

I bought a Nikon FM2/T yesterday, and it feels like new - it wasn't the intention to get the titanium clad version but it popped up at $320 almost locally. I would still try to find an FM3A to replace a Nikkormat FT2, but that is more my inner collector shining through!



Reel to reel is here to stay - the remnants of BASF and Ampex are still going strong, and Revox has just announced their first new model in 25 years!

Now we just need SOMEONE to make a new film camera!

 

[Copyhat]

Wow... that is a good deal.

Is that a lens hood for an EF 35 IS USM?

It's a nice camera - and I am probably buying a Nikon FE later today....

Uhm, I think it is for my Tokina 11-16 mm ultrawide for DX!

Now we just need SOMEONE to make a new film camera!

Hell yeah, that would be nice!

 

[ColColt]

Reel to reel is here to stay

Yep, so is vinyl.