Was the Nikon FM3A a professional camera or a consumer model?
-
A
- Thread starter Vsanzbajo
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Book: PhotoShop Restoration and Retouching. $20
- Started by laser
-
For Sale FS: Marumi 67mm MC Center Filter for 90mm f/8 Lenses
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD! Horseman Long Loupe 6X
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold Canon 50mm 1.8 ltm (later black & chrome version)
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Yes price was the reason I bought the F3. Because in 1982 it's less expensive to buy the F3HP and the MD-4 than just the MD-2 and the MB-1 battery pack for my F2AS. But after using the F3 it grew on me and although I like both, if I have to make the choice I would pick the F3 over the F2. The long production run of the F3 I think has to do with the fact that the F3 has been proven its worth because even after I used the F5 for a while I come back to the F3. It's just the right amount of camera for me.
These days all you need is an iPhone to be a pro.
Yes, I just place my iPhone in the 4x5 enlarger and get great 16x20 prints!
I agree. I also found out the F3 and F4 are excellent cameras.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
It's true, Bruce, but here's how to recycle all that useless Canon and Nikon glass:
Dead Link Removed
I'm not sure exactly what a pro camera is. I've known a number of persons whose main income was from photography and while some used totol models from several manufacturers all used what seemed like an odd mix of anything. Most of them told me it was what felt good in their hands and what the results were and not the cost of the camera that made them make a decision as to what camera to buy. Many of them did use a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord and this was about as common a denominator as there was. It seemed to be an almost standard workhorse. The other commonalities were thay each seemed to have no limited budget for tripods and most used a version of the ETR Bronica for weddings and portraits. One used the ETRS as his sole system camera and made me realize that a single system was better than multiple investments in multiple systems and the ETRs made for both a very good MF camera and a 35mm camera.
One had an extensive range of M42 lenses so his cameras all had this mount. He used a number of Ashahi models through the Spotmatic well into the '90s. Another had a number of Leicas in the studio but almost always used the M5 and CL on shoots. I now own his CL that he used for my wedding. Another was one who standardized on the Contax/Yashica mount camera buying the Zeiss lenses but all but one body was the FX-3. He found he could not get them to break and if it did it was so inexpensive so what. One of my bodies was his daily user in and out of the studio and it still works fine.
I concluded long ago that many professionals decided not on their systems based on camera body but on lenses offered and collected over the years.
One had an extensive range of M42 lenses so his cameras all had this mount. He used a number of Ashahi models through the Spotmatic well into the '90s. Another had a number of Leicas in the studio but almost always used the M5 and CL on shoots. I now own his CL that he used for my wedding. Another was one who standardized on the Contax/Yashica mount camera buying the Zeiss lenses but all but one body was the FX-3. He found he could not get them to break and if it did it was so inexpensive so what. One of my bodies was his daily user in and out of the studio and it still works fine.
I concluded long ago that many professionals decided not on their systems based on camera body but on lenses offered and collected over the years.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 128
- Format
- 35mm
Most pros used the n90s back then.
Well, that and the F2 being discontinued.
I'm talking about the F3 and those years; la Nikon F neither the F2 were discontinued. As far as I am concerned; my F's, F2AS are neither discontinued because I continue using them as well as the Nikkormats
I just happened to stumble on Ken Rockwell's review of the FM3a and it's almost embarrassing the amount of superlatives he heaps on it . . . but deservingly so!
Like a lot of folks, he got the model wrong as he uses a lower case "a" instead of a smaller font capital "A" . . . ;-)
Like a lot of folks, he got the model wrong as he uses a lower case "a" instead of a smaller font capital "A" . . . ;-)
Look at the history. Nikon produced the best 35mm SLR they could with the technology available, there was no concept of pro or amateur until later. A professional photojournalist in the 60s or 70s might have an F or F2 in his bag plus a Nikkormat, with a 35mm and an 85 or 105 for portraits, maybe a 300 for sports and hire the rest as required. He'd be happy to use either camera and any other that kept his clients from thinking he was a cheapskate.
When I assisted back in the 70s 'professional photographer' usually meant studio photographer and 35mm was only used for cheap jobs. The only people who used 35mm exclusively were newspaper men.
When I assisted back in the 70s 'professional photographer' usually meant studio photographer and 35mm was only used for cheap jobs. The only people who used 35mm exclusively were newspaper men.
To me, the FM and FE series were pro cameras. If you were around back in the mid-1970's you'd remember what a game-changer the Olympus OM-1 was. Virtually overnight, the market changed, with smaller and lighter being "in," and big and bulky "out." A lot of pros were smitten with the new Olympus and sold their Fs' and F2s' and bought an OM-1 (if I remember correctly, UPI dropped Nikons at this time for Olympus). So the FM and FE were marketed at this time to the pro who wanted to stay with Nikon but needed a smaller, lighter camera. At least that's how I recall it.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Really?
This question is asked so many times....
Your gear has nothing to do with you being professional. You should only ever buy 'professional gear' for the advantages listed in the specs - whatever feature suits your need.
How about refining the question next time, as in which Nikon camera is the most insultated, or shock resistant, or has the fastest motor drive because I am doing X with it, etc.
Incidently, you earlier posted a question asking if the FM3a was the best 35mm MF, or something like that, did you just buy one and are feeling buyer's remorse? You don't need any convincing that the FM3a is an excellent camera.
This question is asked so many times....
Your gear has nothing to do with you being professional. You should only ever buy 'professional gear' for the advantages listed in the specs - whatever feature suits your need.
How about refining the question next time, as in which Nikon camera is the most insultated, or shock resistant, or has the fastest motor drive because I am doing X with it, etc.
Incidently, you earlier posted a question asking if the FM3a was the best 35mm MF, or something like that, did you just buy one and are feeling buyer's remorse? You don't need any convincing that the FM3a is an excellent camera.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am taking the risk that the definition of a pro camera isn't clear and also the fact that just about any camera can be used for professional work. But I want to answer the question that the OP asked and I THINK it isn't the answer he/she was looking for.
In my opinion, the FM3a isn't a pro camera. It's a camera designed to be a nostalgia. It's a well rounded, just what one needs to take pictures. Most people who own the FM3a are very gentle with it. It's a collectible at introduction.
The FM3a isn't the best Nikon manual focus camera either. It was not meant to be. It is a just right, just enough, nice, elegant camera but not the best.
Anyone can debate those points and I am not saying that what I have said must be true. In this post I would like to state my opinion rather than saying that how do you define a pro camera and the best camera for one isn't best for others.
In my opinion, the FM3a isn't a pro camera. It's a camera designed to be a nostalgia. It's a well rounded, just what one needs to take pictures. Most people who own the FM3a are very gentle with it. It's a collectible at introduction.
The FM3a isn't the best Nikon manual focus camera either. It was not meant to be. It is a just right, just enough, nice, elegant camera but not the best.
Anyone can debate those points and I am not saying that what I have said must be true. In this post I would like to state my opinion rather than saying that how do you define a pro camera and the best camera for one isn't best for others.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Format
- 35mm
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-fm3a/
Nikon didn't even refer to it as a professional camera.
Nikon didn't even refer to it as a professional camera.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 54
- Format
- Multi Format
I bet those 2 agreed that FM3a is a GOOD camera.
Wo cares?
Camera used by professional photographer (= earning most of his income by photograpy*) = pro camera.
Camera used by amateur photographer (the rest) = amateur camera.
Most of the cameras sold are amateur cameras, regardless of the specific model.
All of mine are amateur cameras.
*) probably opening an entirely different can of worms here...
Camera used by professional photographer (= earning most of his income by photograpy*) = pro camera.
Camera used by amateur photographer (the rest) = amateur camera.
Most of the cameras sold are amateur cameras, regardless of the specific model.
All of mine are amateur cameras.
*) probably opening an entirely different can of worms here...
I was a working photographer making a living from my photographs between 1983 and 1989 (freelance/press/events). My two main cameras were a Nikon F3 and a Nikon FM2. I used the FM2 more than my F3 because of its faster flash sync speed. Of the hundreds (thousands?) of rolls I put in both cameras, neither failed me. When I moved up to medium format, I still kept the FM2 in my bag because it was lighter and reliable.
I still have both cameras today. They both still work. Cosmetically, the F3 looks rougher, but the FM2's meter doesn't work and the hotshoe is loose. I keep them both for sentimental reasons.
p.s. I used the F3 mostly for outside photography as it had aperture priority. It was much faster than having to shoot in manual mode.
I still have both cameras today. They both still work. Cosmetically, the F3 looks rougher, but the FM2's meter doesn't work and the hotshoe is loose. I keep them both for sentimental reasons.
p.s. I used the F3 mostly for outside photography as it had aperture priority. It was much faster than having to shoot in manual mode.
Last edited by a moderator:
For the professional photographer for whom the FM3A most closely serviced, it was most definitely a professional camera. Five years earlier and there would have been no doubt. Unfortunately by the time the camera was even introduced, ALL film cameras technically fell out of the definition of "professional".
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |