Would you buy a Nikon FM2n in 2020?

E. von Hoegh · Dec 22, 2020

zanxion72 said:
Would you spend a hefty for a Nikon FM2n noways? I am considering buying one. I found one boxed (silver body) with the silver Nikkor 45mm 2.8P for 350 euros. Would it be worth it?
Basically I have been eyeing an FM3A, but the price for it just does not feel right for me.
What do you think?

Presuming the camera and lens function as new, yes.

zanxion72 · Dec 22, 2020

flavio81 said:
The Smena 8M is very reliable once you get it working first. There is very little to fail there.

You realize that the FM2 and the FE2 have many many parts in common right?

Yes, the FE2's electronics are not bulletproof, but at least they're more reliable than the FE. If my FE dies, i can use any of my other Nikon cameras.

You must be the only person on earth that trusts the Smena 8M so much. Everything is about fail on it as it came right out from the factory. Most of it, including most of its gogs are plastic. When the electronic circuit of the FE2 fails, more or less it enters the realm of the expensive paper weights unless you can find somebody to fix it at a reasonable price. It is o.k. with FE as it costs about half of a FE2 (seems like FE2/2 = FE ).

flavio81 · Dec 22, 2020

zanxion72 said:
There are quite many AF-D lenses if not all that outperform you AI-S lenses. Actually almost all AF-D version is better in terms of IQ.

Only if you think about zooms, in which case you're correct. In fact the only AF-D lens I own is a zoom: The 35-80/4-5.6 AFD. I love that lens and I wished Canon had something similar in FD version. This is almost everything I want in a zoom lens: covers most used focal lengths, sharp, contrasty, little distortion, and weights like a prime.

In primes the story is a bit different. When the AF line was created, many of the first prime lenses that were picked, used the optical design of the (inferior) Series E lenses, not the (superior) AI primes. Two examples:

The 28/2.8. In AIS form this is one of the best Nikkors ever. For the AF version, NIkon used the cheapened-down 5 elements formula of the Series E 28/2.8. The AFD is the same design.

The 35/2.0. In AI and pre-AI form this is an universally lauded Nikkor lens that traces its origins back to the Nikkor-O of 1965. I owned those two versions btw.

The AFD 35/2 is a new, simplified version that has none of the marvellous qualities of the predecessor.

There are more examples of course, what about the 70-210/4 AF and AFD? Another Series E lens. Nikon, instead of giving you the awesome 80-200 of the AI world., gives you the cheapened down stuff. But, well, much better zoom lenses came later.

Then there were better prime lenses in the form of AF-G lenses, but those are unusable on manual focus cameras. Thus, for me, those are a waste of money.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 22, 2020

Les Sarile said:
Other then the attached NH-35 shown in the pic?

You're denigrating one of the most simple elegantly efficient lens flare reducers ever made.
Significant.

flavio81 · Dec 22, 2020

zanxion72 said:
You must be the only person on earth that trusts the Smena 8M so much. Everything is about fail on it as it came right out from the factory.

I have actually dissasembled and overhauled a Lomo Smena 8M and I can assure you, once it's working, there is little that can fail. The shutter doesn't use a slow speed governor (so it can't freeze on cold weather), it's a very simple shutter. Everything is very simple. The plastic case is very hard and thick plastic (otherwise the camera could have been made even lighter!). But the "toy materials" stop at the lens: The lens assembly is pure brass and glass, and sits on a simple helicoid.

The film advance mechanism (and counter) is the worst part of the machine, pure goofy stuff, but once adjusted it just works.

Considering that at f11 or even f8 the lens is seriously sharp, it isn't a bad choice for going to a far away place... there's little that can break down there, really.

The Smena 8M that came in my hands had a non working B speed. because a screw on the shutter mechanism got loose. Just tighten it up and apply loctite on the shutter screws that are around moving parts and ta -da, you get a reliable camera.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 22, 2020

E. von Hoegh said:
You're denigrating one of the most simple elegantly efficient lens flare reducers ever made.
Significant.

Oops. Meant to quote that other dood...);

George Mann · Dec 22, 2020

138S said:
The F4 was better build than the F90

Yes, but I will argue that the F90 has the closest to pro build quality since the Nikkormat.

George Mann · Dec 22, 2020

zanxion72 said:
There are quite many AF-D lenses if not all that outperform you AI-S lenses. Actually almost all AF-D version is better in terms of IQ.

No. The IQ of my 50mm F2 is unsurpassed (unless you are referring to meaningless technical specs)!

zanxion72 said:
The super cheapo F60 offers you center-weighted too.

My super cheap F90x offers Matrix, center weighted and spot, and is a hell of a lot better made!

DREW WILEY · Dec 22, 2020

That F1 might be nice and heavy for clunking a Yeti unconscious.

Les Sarile · Dec 22, 2020

DREW WILEY said:
Les - my idea of a minilab is when I've stuffed too much gear into one of my four darkrooms and am stumbling around it in the dark. I've turned down free drum scanners - nowhere to put one, plus no time to learn a whole different manner of color printing. Need to enjoy the toys I already have, while I still can ! You should take that green shot and list it on EBay for some absurdly high price as a rare collector's version of a military Pentax.

You know how many people who use film use color negatives and wonder what the problem with their results are from and in majority of cases the answer is the resulting scan. We've seen this even from seemingly experienced film users recently. Because of this I am not surprised when I see comments that they no longer shoot color negatives and cite reasons that have nothing to do with the film. When they get blownout results - even when using the latest and greatest matrix metering ,and think that's normal is a dead giveaway the scan was the problem.

flavio81 · Dec 22, 2020

DREW WILEY said:
That F1 might be nice and heavy for clunking a Yeti unconscious.

Great minds think alike. I think we make an excellent expedition team. Shall you bring a powered Nikon F? just in case the Yeti wakes up afterwards.

flavio81 · Dec 22, 2020

Les Sarile said:
You know how many people who use film use color negatives and wonder what the problem with their results are from and in majority of cases the answer is the resulting scan.

Well said. And even worse if the lab is using one of those Epson flatbeds like the V600 or V850. Truly throwing the accutance and definition down the drain. Even in medium format!!

Once i had a nice 8x10 analog enlargement done from a 6x6 b&w negative. I went to the same lab to request a neg scan of the same frame (the lab uses a V800). They gave me this file with inferior tonality and, when pixel peeping, blurry fuzzy/smeary edges around the transitions of white to black. Just like you'll find on most scans by flatbed scanners...

The print, scanned by a normal scanner, gave a better file than the negative!!

George Mann · Dec 22, 2020

Les, a properly calibrated Fuji Frontier, with a competant operator controlling it will produces the best 35mm color scans that one could hope for.

Les Sarile · Dec 22, 2020

I suppose the Coolscans (V, 5000 & 9000) can even be considered of the vintage Nikon era being released even before the FM3A . . .

One great benefit is you won't worry about using a cheap photo lab, where they drag your film on the floor and thoroughly gouge it because of one of the truly beneficial automation called ICE - dust and scratch removal. There is no way I could have spotted this as cleanly even if I took my time!

Oh wait this was one of many frames of film I sent to Fuji Pro in Arizona to make traditional 20" X 30" print.

Les Sarile · Dec 22, 2020

George Mann said:
Les, a properly calibrated Fuji Frontier, with a competant operator controlling it will produces the best 35mm color scans that one could hope for.

That's great but I know it's harder to come by "competent" operators when they are churning out process and scan at $10 a roll.

While in Spain some years back, I took this picture . . .

I liked it after I had it processed and scanned at a minilab there. You know who else liked it, a local tourism website with the exact same shot . . .

Les Sarile · Dec 22, 2020

flavio81 said:
Well said. And even worse if the lab is using one of those Epson flatbeds like the V600 or V850. Truly throwing the accutance and definition down the drain. Even in medium format!!

Once i had a nice 8x10 analog enlargement done from a 6x6 b&w negative. I went to the same lab to request a neg scan of the same frame (the lab uses a V800). They gave me this file with inferior tonality and, when pixel peeping, blurry fuzzy/smeary edges around the transitions of white to black. Just like you'll find on most scans by flatbed scanners...

The print, scanned by a normal scanner, gave a better file than the negative!!

At least with b&w you can look at the scan and compare to the film. Slides even more so.

I had a colleague who's dad was a a combat photog in Europe during WWII and had a chance to scan some of his 4X5 placed on the glass of my V700 and he was happy enough with the results even at 2400dpi.

Full size version -> http://www.fototime.com/5DCEE0B3D75F78C/orig.jpg

No doubt a museum could spend more time and money and get far better results.

What's funny are those I see spending a fortune on coveted lenses and use flatbeds to show their work. I suppose having spent all that money that's all you're left with . . .

Just to put things in perspective, I bought a used Pentax M 50mm f4 macro lens for cheap. I then compared results with my scans at 4000dpi and even compared it to D800 36MP DSLR and clearly my results don't even reach all the detail available on the frame of film.

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

I get that it's Kodak Techpan taken at ISO25 and processed in Kodak Technidol and not even a drum scan would resolve it. I am not advocating for getting cheap used lenses but just want to put into perspective that clearly you can put more money/resources on extracting the image captured on film.

DREW WILEY · Dec 22, 2020

Hi, Les. Yep. 35mm CN film is especially a problem because of sampling size issues, and a higher quality scan in those cases is quite important. Once in awhile I'll order up a decent scan relative to a new CN film I'm not otherwise familiar with, just to save me headaches "reading" negs further down the line. But I don't print anything digitally, and rarely print 35mm anymore, so much of this little detour into scanning pros and cons doesn't affect me personally. I'm loathe to have anyone else print my negatives. My philosophy continues to be, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to do some color printing right now, I'm not going to risk any level of respiratory irritation from color processing chemistry until this pandemic calms down.

Most people don't really understand color neg film very well to begin with, and don't help themselves much by blaming the film instead of doing some homework up front. The other routine mistake is that they think they can correct anything in PS afterwards, and then when the can't, call the film manufacturer stupid for designing that film to begin with. And I suppose, this being a 35mm equipment thread, they might also blame the camera itself for lacking the right kind of auto-this, auto-that nonsense to do the thinking for them. Tools are only as good as the person handling them.

Nowadays I mostly use a Nikon as a black and white scouting too, and then save especially nice negs for small prints. But otherwise, my Nikons, both film and digital, are dedicated to the copystand in the lab. With a 55 macro attached, the combination is plenty good for web work. If I need something more serious, the same setup will accept larger cameras.

voceumana · Dec 22, 2020

This thread sure got off topic.

leicaliker · Dec 22, 2020

no reason not to. they're great cameras with an even greater reputation, being used by the likes of mccurry.

leicaliker · Dec 22, 2020

voceumana said:
This thread sure got off topic.

it happens.

Les Sarile · Dec 22, 2020

leicaliker said:
it happens.

Specially when we help others spend their money . . .

darkosaric · Dec 22, 2020

Off topic is here ok, everybody already knows that FM2 is a good buy, nobody denies it. But in 2020 we sit online more than usual. In previous years many would reply "just go out and shoot some film", but now, well - we go off topic.

DREW WILEY · Dec 22, 2020

I just did go out and shoot some film. But we have tremendous amounts of open space around our cities here.

MultiFormat Shooter · Dec 22, 2020

George Mann said:
...a properly calibrated Fuji Frontier...produces the best 35mm color scans that one could hope for.

A high-end drum scanner, such as a Heidelberg Tango (that is properly calibrated, and skillfully operated) will produce scans vastly superior to a Fuji Frontier.

George Mann · Dec 22, 2020

MultiFormat Shooter said:
A high-end drum scanner, such as a Heidelberg Tango (that is properly calibrated, and skillfully operated) will produce scans vastly superior to a Fuji Frontier.

People often claim this, but I have found that drum scanners don't do as well with 35mm as scanners that are optimized for it (Fuji/Noritsu).

Would you buy a Nikon FM2n in 2020?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency