emraphoto

<p>there are so many variables in this i don't know where to start. scanned? scanner? wet print? c print? printer? density of negative? jpeg? raw? my head is spinning.</p>

<p>i recently did this. M6 classic .85 with zeiss 35mm C</p>

<p>hexar lens not sharp? is this for real?</p>

<p>well i assure you your mind may change after a few days in </p>

<p>i have a pair of FM3A's. i have put one through 100% humidity (West Africa) numerous times, sported one across Chad into Darfur, towed one through the civil war in Syria, clutched one while bouncing about in a trawler in the Atlantic and covered numerous G20 events/clashes/riots with one. neither have skipped a beat.<br> i know a fellow journalist who has sported two fm2n's since the late 80's. still in use today with zero service required.<br> i am not going to say either camera will be 100% reliable for you... just that the 4 cameras of this series i know of have been subjected to extensive environmental challenges and continue to purr along.</p> <p> </p>

<p>film is not something i consider 'better' or 'worse'. where the question begins to gain significance (for me) is when the resources to charge, dump etc. digital files does not fit in to my travel plans. I have been on assignments that involve me being way of the coca-cola grid for extended periods of time and in those cases, some hammer proof film cameras fit the bill. as per the quickly derailed FM3A thread, that particular machine has proven to be a very capable bread winner for me and a pair of them, 2 lenses, a studio master and a load of rolls is a very compact package for me. <br> horses for courses.<br> or ins<em>ert the 'they are just tools' line here</em></p>