Would you spend a hefty for a Nikon FM2n noways?
Short answer: No.
Long answer, with the disclaimer that I haven't used a Nikon FM: I think these are solid cameras, and maybe overrated is a strong word, but they are definitely overpriced.
I have a few Nikons (FE, FG, N8008, Nikomat FT2). The FE is probably the "nicest" of all my manual-focus 35mm cameras, but it's not one of which I have become particularly fond (and I don't know why). It's very smooth, but my Minolta XG-E (the only X-series Minolta I own) has even less mirror slap, and (much to my surprise) my $7 Sears KS Auto comes close.
I think the idea of an all-mechanical camera is overrated. "It works without batteries" -- and, so? Button batteries are cheap and last years, and when they die (even in my mechanical cameras) I change them because I don't want to shoot without an in-camera meter. Furthermore, all-mechanical cameras are much more prone to going out of adjustment than cameras (like the FE) with electronically-timed shutters. And it's nice to have an aperture-priority mode, even for those of us who like shooting manually. Point, focus, shoot. Done.
I know Nikon lenses are highly regarded, and no doubt deserve that reputation. But we're talking about 35mm film (and for me, traditional-grain B&W). If I post five pictures, taken with Nikon, Pentax, Rokkor, Tamron and Sears lenses, I defy anyone to tell the difference. (I've tried this on another forum and no one took me up on it.) A Pentax 50/1.7 can be had for $30. A Nikon Series E 50/1.8 costs twice as much. (Although 85mm Pentax lenses are more expensive than Nikkor. Go figure.)
The FM's LED meter display is the type I like least. It has five displays, and whether you're one stop off or 4 stops off, you see the same thing. There's no clear indication if you can get where you need to be with a simple change in aperture or if you need to change shutter speed as well. A match-needle display (Nikon FE, Pentax KX) or row of LEDs (Nikon FG, Pentax P30T) at least lets you know if you're in the ballpark.
FM2 can't use pre-AI lenses. Now, my FE can, and using pre-AI lenses requires stop-down metering which is a pain in the butt and I don't know why anyone in their right mind would want to do it, but Nikon people seem to regard this as important so I'll mention it.
People talk about how durable the FM2 is. Well, perhaps. But so is my Pentax KX. My grandfather bought it new, I got it around 1990, it's been hauled throughout the US and Europe, carried around in numerous unpadded backpacks and improvised camera bags, been in the hot, been in the cold, left to sit for twenty years, dug out and used again. It's never once been serviced, and yet it still works just fine (I put a roll through it yesterday).
So that's my thought. People say "The Nikon FM2 is the best 35mm cameras ever made," but I don't see any hard evidence of that. I think it's a victim of its own fame. It's not a bad camera, not at all. It certainly has a lot of nice features. But for the price of a Nikon FM, you can buy a couple different cameras that are just as good, maybe better.
Personally, I think the FE is a better camera than the FM, given the match-needle meter, addition of an auto mode, precision of its electronically-timed shutter, and folding AI tab. From what I understand, the FE2 has more advanced features and no disadvantages. So those are probably the "best" manual focus Nikons made. I have one and I still don't enjoy it as much as my other cameras, but likeability is subjective. Personally I prefer the lightweight FG, but I'm a contrarian.
By all means go ahead and buy one if you have your heart set on it -- if you don't, every time you see one in the field you're going to look at your FE2 with disdain and think,
I should have had one of those. Want is the only real reason to buy something. But would I spend the hefty bucks on an FM2 nowadays? Nope, not me!
Aaron
Would the 50mm 1.4 AI be a worthy second? Or a 35mm one.
