Old film camera vs new film camera

[usfpaul82]

I have a newbie question. I have recently gotten into film and picked up a Nikon FE the for a good price. It appears to be functioning correctly and I have managed to take some decent shots with it. I have always been someone who goes after the newest and best of whatever hobby I get in to. So my question...If I were to get the Nikon FM3a, would it give me better images? I guess another way to put this, if we had a brand new in box FE and a brand new in box FM3a, would they both produce the exact same image quality? Being new to SLR, I am not sure what impacts image quality (apart from the user) since I am used to mega pixels, etc form DSLRs.

Thanks!

 

[frank]

1. photographer
2. lens
3. body

 

[Paul Howell]

The camera is secondary to the quality of the lens. The FE and FM3 are both very capable cameras, the FM is all manual while the FE has an auto exposure mode, I would invest in best lens I could afford.

 

[usfpaul82]

Thanks guys. I have a 50mm 1.8AIS for my FE. I agree with this:

1. photographer
2. lens
3. body


BUT thats not really what I was asking....if it was the same photographer using the same lens....would the two cameras produce equal image quality?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Yes.

 

[TheRook]

Better images? Using the same lens, same film, same exposure settings, and the camera working properly - no, not really. I would expect exactly the same image results with either camera.

 

[Malinku]

A slr film camera body is a fancy light tight box with a shutter and viewfinder. So just find a body that handles well in your hands. Add a few high quality lenses and get to shooting.
There really is not a major difference in camera bodies other than durability of a pro level camera.

 

[MattKing]

The newer/fancier bodies add things like matrix metering and auto-focus and built in power wind and collaboration with dedicated automatic flashes.

There are specific circumstances where those additional features can be helpful, but generally speaking they are just conveniences. Although some of those conveniences - things like built in variable diopters and built in facility for electronic remote control - might be much more important for some photographers.

If you like the feel of an FM3a, and prefer the viewing system, and feel more comfortable with something newer, and if there are specific extra features that you already know you will benefit from, then you should feel free to change. In most cases though, it won't make much of a change to the quality of your photographs.

 

[Dali]

Unless you have something specific in mind, I don't see any real advantage to buy a Fm3a vs a FE.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I am not sure what impacts image quality

Only 2 things: lens and film. Everything else is secondary.
You can use the cheapest 35mm camera, but put there a good lens and a nice film and you won't be able to see any difference.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Agreed. My first SLR was a Nikon FE and I've been shooting one for the past 15 years. I've tried other Nikons, but the FE is my favourite - simple to use and is incredibly hard to screw up. I've debated getting the FM3a myself, just to have a newer body that is of the same family of the FE, but there's nothing really that the FM3a has that I feel is worth the extra $500-600. KR has a review of the differences between the two (and similar models), if you haven't already looked at it.

The key to good photographs (however you choose to define "good") is the lens, film, light, exposure, and developing. The camera itself is just a box to hold the film. However, as Matt said, different cameras have different features. The only reason to upgrade the camera is if what you are currently using limits you in some way (for example, the FM3a has much shorter shutter speeds than the FE, but that's only useful if you need to shoot at 1/4000s.) One simple feature that I really like on the FE that is missing on most other models is the automatic mirror lock-up when using the self-timer. It has allowed me to shoot at lower speeds handheld and still get good photos. I didn't realize how much I used that feature until I tried it on other cameras and realized that Nikon didn't put that feature in most of its cameras!

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I have two Nikon FE cameras two Nikon F100 cameras and one Nikon F3hp and that is the one I shoot. The meter in the F100's are amazing i broke both though and the two FE cameras as well. The old F3hp just keeps rocking. I will buy a new F100 for sure they just nail the exposure so accurately and they are cheap plus the autofocus is handy with children.

 

[images39]

I think the most direct answer to your question is all other things being equal, I'd say you wouldn't be able to tell one bit of difference between an image shot on the FE vs. the FM3a. There are differences in features, yes, but they'll deliver the same image quality (assuming neither camera has a light leak, and both meters and shutters are working properly). I've owned and used an FE since the late '80's, and it's a great camera for my tastes. The only reasons why I might consider paying the huge price difference for an FM3a are: brighter viewfinder, continues to function at all shutter speeds even if the batteries die, service parts are still available for it. Notice that none of those reasons has anything to do with image quality, only features and conveniences.

Dale

 

[John Bragg]

Get the FM3A and keep the FE as well. You can then enjoy the best of both and you have a spare body. Nikon glass is plentyful so you could build a great manual focus kit around those two bodies.

 

[Jim Jones]

It may be better to invest in two or more FEs than one FM. Years ago a friend and I carried 5 0r 6 Nikon and Nikkormat bodies (and one Pentax for its 400mm lens) on a three-week photo safari to the Great American West. This gave us instant options for color and fast or fine-grain film. When one Nikon broke down, we had plenty of spares.

 

[Diapositivo]

I totally agree with MattKing: camera body only adds "conveniences" in general. In very rare cases you might need a certain body to work better, or much better. For general photography, the camera body is more or less irrelevant.

Actually it is relevant but on different levels than what people normally think: it might be that the low weight is relevant, or the very clear viewfinder (Minolta excel at that), or the fact that the camera body "fits" the size of your hands and fingers. But, in general, 95% of cameras will deal extremely well with 95% of photographic situations.

Unless you are into microphotography, arctic expeditions, "photographic hunting", sport photography and a few other fields, just concentrate on weight, reliability, ease of use.

A Nikon FM3 has, if memory serves, a flash-synchro of 1/250th, while an FE has a flash-synchro of around 1/100th, 1/125th. The faster shutter speed is also different (1/2000 against 1/1000, probably).

The Nikon FM3 probably has TTL-Flash exposure, which can be very handy in macrophotography.

If that is not important to you, your Nikon FE will deliver all the results you are capable of producing without constraining in any way the quality of your production.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have to disagree that a camera body is irrelevant, it is more than a light tight box, a good body will keep the film flat not allow for buckling, the mount should be tight with no wobble, film advance no overlapping frames, the meter accurate. In this case I doubt OP will seen any difference between a FE or FM, but if he considering a move from say Zient or 70s Petri, could be a difference. I had a Miranda that had a film pressure plate that come come lose so the film was not flat and out of focus in one corner.

 

[elcabezagrande]

I would go in the opposite way, from an FE to an F3, F2, or F. But I am an old curmudgeon.

 

[Huss]

I would get the camera that you most enjoy using. With the same lens and the same film they all take the same pics if they are in proper working order.

Between the FE and FM3A iI would definitely pick the FM3A as is has a far greater shutter speed range (1/4000 sec) that I would use. But.. so does the FE2 - and I picked that over the FM3A as for my use there is zero difference, but one is 1/3 of the price of the other.

 

[Alan Gales]

1. photographer
2. lens
3. body

I might add meter somewhere in that too for the question asked. Matrix metering in some of the later Nikons is easier to use and may give a newbie better results. Of course if you have an accurate meter and you know how it works then it doesn't matter. I shot slide film for many years using my camera's center/bottom weighted meter and had no problem.

 

[farmersteve]

Get yourself a Holga

 

[Alan Gales]

Get yourself a Holga

I know they are popular but I still can't understand why anyone would want one of those!

 

[fstop]

I know they are popular but I still can't understand why anyone would want one of those!

Luddites love them.

 

[TheRook]

I know they are popular but I still can't understand why anyone would want one of those!

Some people enjoy a good challenge.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I know they are popular but I still can't understand why anyone would want one of those!

They're all the rage over in Hipsterville and its adjoining Snobsville in the Big Smoke upstream from me. And those guys in their skinny pink jeans and bright green pinaforte jackets clutching their rainbow-patterned-crema double-mocha lattés are trotting out their tacky "excellent" streetwork as "fine art". Fortunately only their cafés exhibit their work. Figures.