EM

<p>I am absolutely new to the Nikon cameras, have purchased a nikon em body, and I have three questions:<br>

1) What do I have in the EM Nikon that I do not have in an Olympus OM2n ?<br>

2) How will the Nikon EM will work with an M42 lens, I mean what it will deliver instead of an m42 body and what it will not ?<br />3) Is this the TYPE of adapter I should buy: <br>

 

<p>Many thanks in advance<br>

ruben</p>

<p>!. The Nikon EM probably has a lot of plastic as compared to the OM2n. When it was introduced the price was about half that of the OM2n. So I can't think of anything the EM has but the OM2n doesn't.<br>

2. It would work OK with the right adapter and an M42 lens in stop down mode and of course it only has the  mode and no manual.<br>

3. The adapter in the picture is wrong. To use an M42 on a Nikon and want to focus to infinity there must be some glass in the adapter to shift the focal length. <br>

I would not use a Nikon body for M42 lenses. If I like to use the M42 lenses I would rather buy a Pentax screw mount body. </p>

<p>Hi BeBu,<br>

Thank you for your kind response. I do have the adapter with the glass and it doesn't focus even to 5 meters. Perhaps something I have done is wrong<br>

Regarding the Pentax screw bodies I have chosen the Nikon EM among other reasons for its size, while there is not M42 camera without an elephant size, or at least near the size of the Nikon EM. I already have a nice Praktica, but it is too too big to my taste.<br /><br />Thank you anyway.</p>

<p>The EM was designed to introduce (mostly) young women into photography by making it small, light and easy to use. It typically came with the 50/1.8 Series E (pancake) lens, which is a terrific lens. You basically can't use M42 lenses on it, as there isn't sufficient distance for an adapter (or diameter clearance) due to a Nikon register of 46.5mm and an M42 register of 45.46mm. The EM, which is designed for aperture priority shooting, doesn't have fully manual exposure except at 1/90 sec, whereas the OM2n has the full range.</p>

<p>The only area that I can think of that the EM beats an OM2 is with the flash sync speed. 1/90th for the EM & 1/60th for the OM2. Neither is really impressive as sync speeds go TBH.<br /> I had an EM briefly & replaced it as my small Nikon with an FG as it has a manual mode. A far more useful camera & it is the same size as the EM.</p>

<p>I also have an OM2 Spot Program & much prefer it to the EM & FG.</p>

<p>The EM is a nice little camera and more reliable than one might think, given it's cheap price and somewhat cheap construction. I've acquired 3 of them over the years and all work perfectly fine. One thing the EM has which the OM2N does not is the handy-dandy backlight button. It's on the front of the camera and when you press it you get two more stops of light to the exposure. Perfect for backlit situations. It's incredibly handy.</p>

<p>The EM also works at 1/90 without batteries. I forget if the OM2N is totally battery dependent - I know the OM1 is all mechanical.</p>

<p>The OM2 was a professional-grade camera. The EM a budget model of quality construction. As BeBu said, it was about half the price. </p>

<p>Since the OM1/2 was designed to compete with the Nikon F2 and the Canon F1, it was launched with an entire system of optics and accessories. Finder screens are interchangeable. It was lightweight and compact but with a very impressive build. It meters off the film plane during exposure, or off the front shutter curtain. The Zuiko lenses were very respected.</p>

<p>The problem for Olympus is that having an innovative, well-made camera was not enough. If you were a working photographer, you could walk down 32nd Street between 6th and 7th and find 25 well-qualified people who could fix your Nikon F on the spot for you, even if you dropped it in the ocean. If you worked for a newspaper, there was a drawer full of F bodies and lenses for assignments. You get the idea.</p>

<p>Ruben. No Nikon SLR camera, no matter how small, will accept M42 Pentax lenses without using a converter/adapter. The converter/adapter will contain a negative lens element to enable infinity focus, and will severely degrade the quality of any lens attached to it. This makes using M42 lenses on a Nikon body a very bad idea.</p>

<p>Canon Eos cameras have a much shorter "register" (the distance from lens to focal plane), and can accept a variety of M42 lenses with a simple bayonet to thread adapter. No interposing lens element is needed, although some M42 lenses will collide with the Canon mirror, so you need to be careful!</p>

<p>Since film camera bodies are being almost thrown away these days, I'd write the EM off to experience and get a Canon Eos body of some sort. Or you could get a Pentax or Praktica body and not have to bother with adapters at all. In fact it's probably cheaper to buy a used film camera than to buy a lens adapter. You're only using 35mm sized film after all; nothing that'll show the ultimate in lens quality.</p>

<p>Ruben:<br>

As a long-time Nikon user and dabbler in all types of SLRs, you picked the wrong camera if you want to use old M42 mount lenses, period. A Pentax ME - which is very similar in function to the Nikon EM, will easily take an M42-K mount adapter and allow the use of the the screw-mount lenses without any other intermediate lenses. It's a no-brainer, IMHO to use a K-mount with M-42 adapter.<br>

As for the EM -- it's a fine Aperture priority camera so long as your needs are not complex, and is capable of taking pretty good images under most conditions. But, like any Nikon, it does not play well with other lens mounts and adapters. If you are looking for a film body that will take all types of adapters there is the Canon EOS system. But, if you are just wanting to use old screw-mount glass, I suggest buying a Pentax ME or ME super, or even a newer model such as the P-30. <br>

The Olympus OM system is a great one, and the cameras are small and very functional -- but not significantly smaller than a Pentax ME.<br>

Good luck.</p>

 

No wonder I've never been able to find a fully functional Nikon EM.

Patrick found all three of 'em.

<p>Look beyond the plastic covers. Like all Nikon bodies at the time, the EM had a copper silumin aluminum chassis, which no entry-level DSLR has these days. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/em/</p>

<p>Still, the FG is a better proposition at the same size, or the ME Super if you want to use M42 lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No wonder I've never been able to find a fully functional Nikon EM. Patrick found all three of 'em.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bought one back when it was just introduced I think it was 1979. I had to send it back to Nikon for repair twice within the first year but the problem still existed so I sold it.<br /></p>