Thinking about buying a Nikon FA

KinoGrafx said:

Rockwell must never have taken his FA out in inclement weather… my professional experience with several FAs (when they were new) was not good, but they are cool looking cameras! As an alternative, the n90s is way cheaper, miles better (I know, no matrix with mf lenses, so what..) better vf and fun to use, but it looks like a potato

Click to expand...

The FA wasn't built for professionals who couldn't choose the weather for photography, but for amateurs. Professional photographers had to wait for the Nikon F4.

The F4 has some weather sealing, but is therefore not submersible

Bill Burk said:

I have been thinking of an FA for solely the matrix metering capability. I am so tired of shooting in Automatic and having a bright patch of light throw my shot into underexposure.

Click to expand...

In my experience, when sometimes challenged by backlit situations, the FA matrix metering tends to overexpose which is fine with print film, but less so with slides.

KinoGrafx said:

but it looks like a potato

Click to expand...

You win. Never has anything looked so unintentionally potato

I have an FA, FE-2 and Fm3a. I use the FA for slide film as the matrix metering gives me better slides than the traditional center weighted metering. I use 35mm for shoot from the hip, so I learn to trust the in camera meter, of how to use it to get results I like. all of them are great cameras. I have an F4 with sn F3 red dot split prism focus screen to use with ai-s lenses. but the heft of it, even with the smaller battery pack, makes it a seldom used camera. I love the smaller fe-2 style bodies for the compact size. with a 50mm lens, they fit in the pocket of cargo pants/shorts easily, which is what I need them to do. carry everywhere camera body. the results from any of them will be fine once you understand the metering. if you find one in good condition buy it.

I miss the days back around 2010 when you could get these cameras for free as many were used as lens caps for lenses I bought. now people understand how good they are and reliable, assuming you use it to exercise the shutter every once in a while.

Nitroplait said:

80% of the used FA's we get in the shop are defective. The top plate is plastic and doesn't really wear well.

Click to expand...

Plastic ...

Andreas Thaler said:

The FA wasn't built for professionals [...] but for amateurs.

Click to expand...

... for all these reasons I'd nowadays definitely prefer a rock solid FM type camera (FM2, FM3a) or an F2/F3.

Those electronic FA amateur cameras are 40 years old now...

1957ExaktaVarexIIa said:

Plastic ...

... for all these reasons I'd nowadays definitely prefer a rock solid FM type camera (FM2, FM3a) or an F2/F3.

Those electronic FA amateur cameras are 40 years old now...

Click to expand...

Plastic is the smarter material for camera construction. It doesn't corrode, makes housings lighter, insulates, absorbs forces, and doesn't deform.

Metal largely lacks these properties. Yes, it does absorb forces, but the deformation remains.

Amateur camera doesn't mean a bad camera. And electronics don't mean a camera has an expiration date.

Silicon is durable, and most of the circuitry is located in silicon, encased in plastic. These are good prerequisites for a long life.

As my posts here show, SLRs of this generation are repairable with a good chance of success; it just depends on how far you want to go and how intensively you want to deal with it.

"Electronics" in cameras have an image problem, and unjustly so.

These documents don't guarantee a successful repair, but they significantly increase the chances of one. Along with the Nikon Service Manual and one or two abandoned FAs for study/spare parts.

Folks, overcome your reservations about camera electronics and don't let them spoil your enjoyment of these great SLRs.

If there's anything that needs repair, the doors are open.

There's no repair guarantee for mechanical SLRs either.

But you can try

Back in 1984-5, I went to my local camera store, cash in hand, planning to buy an FA.
I checked one out, and also tried out an FE2.
I left with the FE2.

AnselMortensen said:

Back in 1984-5, I went to my local camera store, cash in hand, planning to buy an FA.
I checked one out, and also tried out an FE2.
I left with the FE2.

Click to expand...

Case closed! I had the same feeling when trying to decide, but I was lucky to be able to try cameras before I kept one. Yup, I did the midwest camera show circuit and got to try cameras out that many folks just dream of. Some I kept and most I didn't. I just thought for my work the FE2 was good enough, although the FA would have also done the job just fine.

John Wiegerink said:

Case closed! I had the same feeling when trying to decide, but I was lucky to be able to try cameras before I kept one. Yup, I did the midwest camera show circuit and got to try cameras out that many folks just dream of. Some I kept and most I didn't. I just thought for my work the FE2 was good enough, although the FA would have also done the job just fine.

Click to expand...

I dislike the FE2 and all the cameras of about that era that had a large needle that would swing in an arc along a dozen or so shutter speeds. I just could never internalize reading those quickly. For the same reason I dislike all the handheld meters that that have a meter in a long arc that I have to adjust dials and find the right place to read. I MUCH prefer a digital readout that shows me the correct shutter of aperture, or the good old simple too-high/too-low needle or LED. The Pentax MX was the best of those with 5 LEDs.

abruzzi said:

I dislike the FE2 and all the cameras of about that era that had a large needle that would swing in an arc along a dozen or so shutter speeds. I just could never internalize reading those quickly. For the same reason I dislike all the handheld meters that that have a meter in a long arc that I have to adjust dials and find the right place to read. I MUCH prefer a digital readout that shows me the correct shutter of aperture, or the good old simple too-high/too-low needle or LED. The Pentax MX was the best of those with 5 LEDs.

Click to expand...

I guess it's what you cut your teeth on that makes you feel at ease. I started out with no built-in meter and then match needle. I can use LED digital, but I much prefer analog style match needle myself. Why? Cuz I cut my teeth on it and it just comes natural.

My first camera was a Nikkormat FTn, so I learned on the needle high or low approach. I prefer digital though because I'm much more numerate than spacial. I've never understood the zone stickers on pentax meters because It's just too easy to add or subtract stops in my head.

Now the question remains, which FA is better: the black, silver or gold one?

I purchased my FA new around 1987, still have it today, and run a roll of film through it about once a year.

I'll start with the good news -- even in 2025, it's a fun camera to use. The matrix metering is primitive, but it works as long as you are using the camera in landscape orientation. In portrait orientation you are better of sticking to center weighted or external metering. Similarly, TTL works. I use my SB-800 flashes on the FA, F100, D800, and Z8. Yes, it uses batteries, but they last a long time and are easy to replace.

Continuing on to the indifferent news -- Some people prefer the match needle display of the FE2, which some people prefer the LCD of the FA. Using either camera in inclement weather is not a good idea without some sort of rain shield. Like the FE2 and FM3A, it does not allow use of unconverted pre-AI lenses. MD-15 motor drives are available inexpensively, but I've never felt the need to add one.

Finally, the not so good news. Unlike the FE2, the camera lacks an exposure lock. The only source of spare parts is cannibalization from equally old cameras. The FA was designed as a "prosumer" camera before that term was in common use. It was not designed for the rigors of professional use, but like the FE2 the 1/250th sync speed and ability to use TTL through the hot shoe meant some were embraced by pros. The plastic top plate is less of an issue than the flexible PC board. The latter tends to lose flexibility and crack over time, which results in a bricked camera.

So personally? While I'll continue to use my FA, I can't recommend it as a "full-time" camera. It's a fascinating piece of historical "yestertech," which became a technological dead end as soon as the Minolta Maxxum hit the market.

Horatio said:

One thing that he mentioned stuck out for me: extended time exposure in auto/P mode. I think this might work for astrophotography.

Click to expand...

The FA is a fine camera and mine continues to be a productive shooter as I have had no issues with it. I agree with Ken's assessment that the metering is very competent and reliable.

Untitled by Les DMess, on Flickr

Unless you're committed to the Nikon mount, I would consider another camera if you really want extremely long autoexposures.

benveniste said:

The only source of spare parts is cannibalization from equally old cameras.

Click to expand...

This is the usual source for all outdated cameras.

The age of the parts should not matter, except for parts with an expiration date, such as certain plastics or LCDs.

Andreas Thaler said:

Now the question remains, which FA is better: the black, silver or gold one?

Click to expand...

If I didn't mind paying extra for it, a gold one.

George Mann said:

If I didn't mind paying extra for it, a gold one.

Click to expand...

I've seen several gold cameras of different makes and models. None looks good to me.

Chan Tran said:

I've seen several gold cameras of different makes and models. None looks good to me.

Click to expand...

there is acertain tackyness I associate with gold. My grandmother lived in a highrise condo outside Philadelphia and it was decorated with "gold"--mostly things painted gold like a gold telephone.

Now platinum...actually I want one of the melted glass hoppers that they used to make optical glass at the Kodak Hawk Eye building--solid platinum.

Chan Tran said:

I've seen several gold cameras of different makes and models. None looks good to me.

Click to expand...

I agree, with the possible exception the Rollei 35 by Retrospekt.

NICE CAMERA