Would you buy a Nikon FM2n in 2020?

[Huss]

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).

On rangefinderforum.com there is a drum scanner thread. The 35mm drum scans are incredible (let alone the larger formats). Much better than anything I've seen from a Noritsu etc.
I've also worked with a commercial photographer who has his own drum scanner. His 35mm scans again were incredible.

 

[George Mann]

On rangefinderforum.com there is a drum scanner thread. The 35mm drum scans are incredible (let alone the larger formats). Much better than anything I've seen from a Noritsu etc.
I've also worked with a commercial photographer who has his own drum scanner. His 35mm scans again were incredible.

The Rangefinder forum can be hard to navigate. Do you know which subforum this thread is in?

 

[zanxion72]

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.

I agree that these bakelite mostly made cameras bring surprising results. I tried a Vilia that came into a batch of cameras bought just for a Contax II included in it. To my surprise, its 40mm f/4 lens gave excellent results. It is ugly, with bakelite all over it with just a thin metal frame around it. It is fun, but I would never go out with just that camera in my bag, a lesson learned with the broken Smena I mentioned before.

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

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

The 55mm f/2.8 AF-D beats it easily in every way. Of the best lenses Nikon ever made. We could talk about the 60mm f/2.8D, but the price gets somewhat high with it.

The comparison with the F60 was just a price wise note. Nobody in this thread cares about F90, or should I say any blinking gizmos (unless you can find a good one for 20 bucks). That say was just about a features-vs-price thing. Indeed an F90 is better than an F60, although it has a similar clap happy noisy shutter. But F100 is better than F90, F5 is better than F100 and so on...

Presuming the camera and lens function as new, yes.

Bought it. Both work correctly and it is like new. I will get it though for a CLA after holidays. I do that with any used camera worthy of something that I buy.

 

[George Mann]

The 55mm f/2.8 AF-D beats it easily in every way. Of the best lenses Nikon ever made. We could talk about the 60mm f/2.8D, but the price gets somewhat high with it.

Not in every way, you are exaggerating! For instance, an unatural level of sharpness (like the lenses you mentioned) does not make it better unless you like it better.

The matching Leitz/Nikkor 50mm F2's produce the most accurate and transparent results of their focal length class.

But F100 is better than F90

Technically perhaps. But the F90 is built better, and is capable of anything one could reasonably want from a camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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



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

"Unsurpassed"?
You've not used many really good lenses, then.
Mind you, the 50/2 Nikkor H is the only Nikkor 50 I own, because I like them - all five, one for each body. But the 50/1.8 doesn't have the barrel distortion of the -H. The Summitar is sharper in the central zone (the Summitar is sharper than the first three versions of the vaunted Summicron, inthe center and I like the Summitar contrasty smoothness).
A good Helios 103 is gorgeous, sharp and smooth. Kinda like the Summitar but with maybe a flatter field?
And, you really should try the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I'm certain you'll find something to bitch about it.

 

[zanxion72]

"Unsurpassed"?
You've not used many really good lenses, then.
Mind you, the 50/2 Nikkor H is the only Nikkor 50 I own, because I like them - all five, one for each body. But the 50/1.8 doesn't have the barrel distortion of the -H. The Summitar is sharper in the central zone (the Summitar is sharper than the first three versions of the vaunted Summicron, inthe center and I like the Summitar contrasty smoothness).
A good Helios 103 is gorgeous, sharp and smooth. Kinda like the Summitar but with maybe a flatter field?
And, you really should try the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I'm certain you'll find something to bitch about it.

Well said! +1

Not in every way, you are exaggerating! For instance, an unatural level of sharpness (like the lenses you mentioned) does not make it better unless you like it better.

The matching Leitz/Nikkor 50mm F2's produce the most accurate and transparent results of their focal length class.

Technically perhaps. But the F90 is built better, and is capable of anything one could reasonably want from a camera.

I am not exaggerating at all. Honestly you have never tried any really good lens. Perhaps that 50/2 is the best you have, but by all it is just an average lens.. And if you want to crank it further up, it does not fare a cent against my summucron 50/2 (on my Leica M6).
The F90 is better build than the F100? I thought we had some serious talk about it but you just killed it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

I have had the 35 Nikkor-O for 35 years, it is the only "fast" 35 I've ever liked.

 

[George Mann]

Well said! +1



I am not exaggerating at all. Honestly you have never tried any really good lens. Perhaps that 50/2 is the best you have, but by all it is just an average lens.. And if you want to crank it further up, it does not fare a cent against my summucron 50/2 (on my Leica M6).
The F90 is better build than the F100? I thought we had some serious talk about it but you just killed it.

I will let you and the other guy stew in your delusions.

 

[zanxion72]

I will let you and the other guy stew in your delusions.

You post about your F90 (who cares) in a thread asking for what would be a good price of an FM2n. Well think of that. Perhaps you are the one deluding here.

 

[138S]

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

Of course, the F90X was specially well made, being a Prosumer device, it was sold to Pros when the F5 was not arriving yet, and the F4 AF was judged slower than the Canon that had the motor inside the lens.
Anyway the FA and the F100 were also very well made, also being prosumer level.

 

[Craig75]

OP should have bought a Mecaflex and a set of kilfitts and sent the camera to Terje Lavender in Freiburg to be CLA'ed as he still has the original Monagas factory shims rather than the piece of garbage he has ended up with.

 

[138S]

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.

It depends... If you consider the Color Inversion and Image Intelligence of the Frontier (and the Noritsu) it destroys the Tango.

Regarding resolving power the Tango has much more, another thing is when this is useful or not, the Fuji delivers 3600 x 5400 images from 35mm negatives. Not in many situations a Color Negative frame will need more to take all it has. Still in some situations one may want more... but the frontier takes true 75 line pairs per mm, a resolution that in the vast majority of the practical cases surpases what a CN frame has inside. You have to shot on trippod and look at very high contrast edges to see the Frontier's limitations.

We have to understand that hey are very different machines, the Frontier has an Area sensor delivering incredible speed and productivity, designed to be the perfect tool for 18x12 cm prints.

Sorry for the off, this is not the place to debate about scanners.

 

[film_man]

All this fascination about build quality. These cameras still work after decades of use in varying conditions, drops, dings, transport, abuse, minimal to no servicing. For all intents and purposes that qualifies them as well built and well past their intended purpose (I doubt Nikon and Canon were building "forever" cameras, not a very good business model unless you can pull it off like Leica). I just don't know what people do with their cameras that makes them obsess about build quality. I mean the most shooting people did this year was their back yard and before that would mainly be their families and the odd trip here and there. For those that do more extreme journeys you already know what works or not and come with backup. For those that work professionally (and still shoot film...) backup is also there and if anything breaks the cost is just part of doing business.

Here's some perspective:

My plastic fantastic EOS 300 that nowadays is available for a less than the cost of a roll of film has lasted 20 years (bought new). TWENTY. It has shot hundreds of rolls of film. I expect the FM2n to last forever too. If I remember correctly the camera cost me £200 new with the kit lens. That's £10 a year, less than £1 a month. If it dies who cares.

The only camera I expect to loose over time is the Nikonos just because of the nature of it. Even if that happened today I'm fine with that. I bought it 6 years ago for £100. I spend probably another £300 in servicing over the years at Southern Nikonos. That's £400 for 6 years, ie less than £6 a month "rent" which is the cost of a single roll of Portra. If it dies, who cares.

I spend more on Netflix each month than those two cameras.

 

[138S]

All this fascination about build quality.

Today we don't need much a Pro camera at all... Not many of us are shooting film all day long, isn't it?

Those cameras were made for Pros that had to shot hard many days per week, in the weekend alone (events) they could shot 50 rolls in average...

Still having a solid build machine is a joy...

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

"Unsurpassed"?
You've not used many really good lenses, then.
Mind you, the 50/2 Nikkor H is the only Nikkor 50 I own, because I like them - all five, one for each body. But the 50/1.8 doesn't have the barrel distortion of the -H. The Summitar is sharper in the central zone (the Summitar is sharper than the first three versions of the vaunted Summicron, inthe center and I like the Summitar contrasty smoothness).
A good Helios 103 is gorgeous, sharp and smooth. Kinda like the Summitar but with maybe a flatter field?
And, you really should try the SMC Takumar 50/1.4. I'm certain you'll find something to bitch about it.

The only thing I can find to bitch about concerning my Takumar lenses is that Pentax never made them in F mount.

 

[138S]

The only thing I can find to bitch about concerning my Takumar lenses is that Pentax never made them in F mount.

If Takumar had made lenses for the Nikon, then Nikkor could have attacked by making Nikkors for Pentax cameras. This was a war nobody would like to start.

Then, perhaps, also a war in the patents could have followed...

Also a camera manufacturer may make difficult the other to have good compatibility.... They mostly all allow 3rd party cheap glass to be mounted in their cameras, this makes the system mostly open without much loses in the sells. This is my interpretation.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

If Takumar had made lenses for the Nikon, then Nikkor ciuld have attacked by making Nikkors for Pentax cameras. This was a war nobody would like to start.

Then, perhaps, also war in the patents could follow...

I was just joking about that. I love my Takumar lenses, but I prefer my Nikon cameras to my M42 Pentax cameras. I am aware that there are adapters that allow you to mount M42 lenses on F mount cameras, but from what I have read they do not focus to infinity.

Imagine a world where the manufacturers agreed on one standard mount and all made cameras and lenses for that mount…

 

[138S]

but from what I have read they do not focus to infinity.

This is solved by placing a glass in the adapter, for example to mount Canon EF in Nikon F mount:



Instead, to mount a Nikon in a Canon EF no glass is required:



The camera with then longer Flange to Film distance requires a glass, the other one only requires a ring. Of course this is beyond electronics and mechanical features that may complicate a lot the adapter, if wanting that.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@film_man Very well said.

 

[flavio81]

I was just joking about that. I love my Takumar lenses, but I prefer my Nikon cameras to my M42 Pentax cameras. I am aware that there are adapters that allow you to mount M42 lenses on F mount cameras, but from what I have read they do not focus to infinity.

I understand your concern. I have the original M42 to FD adapter by Canon, it works wonderfully and of course keeps infinity focus. It's a nice way to use M42 lenses. I love my Takumars of course, as well as my Carl Zeiss Jena M42 lenes (20, 35 and 135mm)

Imagine a world where the manufacturers agreed on one standard mount and all made cameras and lenses for that mount…

Well, M42 was such a mount. And you could argue that the K-mount was such a mount, after all, many manufacturers used it.

 

[flavio81]

I have had the 35 Nikkor-O for 35 years, it is the only "fast" 35 I've ever liked.

Yes, it is a superb lens. I had the Nikkor-O for some years and now I have the first AI version, which seems similar.

For Canon i have the original (radioactive, concave front, chrome nose) FD 35/2.0 which is a collector's favorite and gets accolades from everybody and is dead sharp even wide open. And fetchs almost double the price than the Nikkor.

However, the Nikkor is smaller and lighter so for practical purposes the Nikkor is a better companion. And probably the Nikkor gives better out of focus areas (haven't really compared). For the Canon i often carry the FD 35/3.5 or FDn 35/2.8 which are extremely light and optically magnificent.

So, the Nikkor is the closest to a truly universal 35mm lens.

 

[albireo]

The F90 is better build than the F100? I thought we had some serious talk about it but you just killed it.

Oh yes. I thought it was established by now. The F90X is better built than the F100 IME. I had the F100, have the F90X. The F100 was disappointing. One known issue, which is what I experienced, was that flimsy plasticky exposure mode selector (matrix/spot/cw) on the pentaprism. It just goes after a while. Other people experienced failures in the focus mode joystick selector. Not me tbh. Great cameras both, but the F90X is way underrated. And thankfully so. shhh! Keep it secret!

 

[138S]

And probably the Nikkor gives better out of focus areas (haven't really compared).

Bokeh is about taste, anyway the Pre AI 35mm/2 has a bokeh a bit in the harsh side for the backgorund, it delivers bright rings around defocus circles, pointing that it overcorrects spheric aberration in the rear Out Of Focus. See the rings in the image.


https://casualphotophile.com/2017/06/19/nikon-nikkor-o-35mm-f2-pre-ai-lens-review/

In that review author paises its bokeh, again this is about taste... but clearly to isolate a subject from background we may want an smoother depiction.

A winner lens in the bokeh game is the Nikkor DC 105 or 135, this is the king, of course this is another focal range, but the as the DC ring is turned it shows what bokeh is about.

Another king is the Takumar 105mm 2.4 of the P67, instead rings it shows a bright center in the defocus disks, pointing spheric aberration is undercorrected in the rear out of focus field, this is one of the principal parameters for sound bokeh. Again taste is also in the midle...

But F100 is better than F90, F5 is better than F100 and so on...

"Better" is always relative... we may dislike the F5 weight... From the technical point of view, no doubt, about what is better: F5 > F100 > F90, but may compare in context of their own era... then the F90 probably wins over the F100.

The F90 as a good alternative to the F4 and it had a superior AF, while the F100 has assumed less that role, in part because of the F5 brilliance, in part because of a few reliability issues, remarkably the shot mode (single, multi, silent) dial, which was nothing seriuos when good service was available, still we always judge severely the least reliability concern...

but the F90X is way underrated. And thankfully so. shhh! Keep it secret!

there is no secret ! This is well known... it is a very good camera... still it has several compatibility issues...

> It does not start the VR function of modern lenses, the F65 does it...

> With G lenses Manual and Aperture-priority modes and not good, only minimum aperture can be used.

> AI lenses don't show the aperture in the finder, this is not much a problem, but it also lacks an optical focus aid in the viewfinder, so having renounced to modern capabilities it is not old enough to be optimal with AI glass...


A bit the F90 works perfect with the AF lenses of his era... probably there are more followers of the AI era or of the "modern" era than followers of the AF era, IMO this is the factor it is less wanted, but no doubt it is great camera, I have one and I love a lot to shot with it.

 

[zanxion72]

Oh yes. I thought it was established by now. The F90X is better built than the F100 IME. I had the F100, have the F90X. The F100 was disappointing. One known issue, which is what I experienced, was that flimsy plasticky exposure mode selector (matrix/spot/cw) on the pentaprism. It just goes after a while. Other people experienced failures in the focus mode joystick selector. Not me tbh. Great cameras both, but the F90X is way underrated. And thankfully so. shhh! Keep it secret!

F100 is considered of the best ones Nikon made and by no luck. The only advantage of F90x is that you can buy three of them for the price of an F100. Quite off topic, but I got it that you really like your F90x anyway.

 

[zanxion72]

...From the technical point of view, no doubt, about what is better: F5 > F100 > F90, but may compare in context of their own era... then the F90 probably wins over the F100....

But we are not living in that era, and for sure they are not collectables, right? With all other parts being equal, it is easy to make out which is the best from that bunch.