Jump to content

F3 vs Fm3a


nate_mertz

Recommended Posts

Which of these two cameras do you guys find to be a better value? An

Fm3a is about the same price as a used F3hp. Right now I have an Fe

and I love it! The only thing is I would like a second body for

prints/b&w.

The only reasons for getting an F3 over the Fm3a are that the f3 has:

mirrior lockup, 100% viewfinder and a removeable prism. Any comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gotten 3 used F3 bodies on ebay, and never paid more than $325 for one in excellent+ condition. (actually, I paid $500 for one with an action finder and an MD-4 in Ex+ shape, but that is comparable to $300 for a non-motorized F3hp.

 

I think that the F3 represents the best value on the Used market of all the Nikon Pro bodies, because of how many of them are out there, thus driving the prices down. The F3 is built to an higher standard of durability than an FM3a. Nothing wrong with an FM3a, but the F3 is built to take a higher level of professional abuse.

 

Frankly, I think you should be looking at F3hp bodies and used FE-2 bodies, unless you really need the battery independence of the FM3a, in which case I'd look at used FM2n bodies. An FE-2 or FM2n body in Ex/Ex+ condition should cost around $150-$200 less than a new FM3a, and at least $50 less than a comparable condition used F3hp

 

F3 bodies represent better value on the used market due strictly to supply and demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nate!<P>

 

I haven't owned an FM3A yet - though I'd love to. In fact, I think about it quite often.<P>

 

But I have owned an FE2, FM2N (as well as, like you, an FE - which, by the way, was a little dream machine that got me through four months shooting in India, among other places) - all these together is rather like owning an FM3A, I think. And recently I've gotten an F3HP - which I love.<P>

 

Certainly you'd be more comfortable with the FM3A at first, because it's the most like your FE. I would say it's your FE genetically enhanced: match-needle metering (like the FE bodies), mechanical shutter (like the FM bodies) option, speeds of up to 1/4000 sec (FE2, FM2), etc. Plus, it's new, there's the warranty, and so on.<P>

 

However - and this is a big however - the F3HP is a whole higher level of design, engineering, and manufacturing achievement. This was, when it was introduced, what the F5 (and, in some ways, the EOS-1v) is today: the best in the format, and the camera that the world's pros, most of them, bought and used. Further, because it was designed and built so well, it continued to be produced - unchanged - for almost twenty years. People who were born in the same year as the F3, were adults by the time production was stopped. That's pretty phenomenal. I call this camera, "A little Porsche without wheels."<P>

 

Weight-wise, I find there is very little difference, if any, between my FE/FM cameras, and the F3. In terms of build quality and ruggedness, smoothness of winding mechanism, brightness of viewscreen, available accessories, and flexibility: the F3 has it all over the FE/FM series cameras. And, that 100% viewfinder coverage makes an immense difference in how I work. The only thing missing, for me, is match-needle metering - though I am becoming accoustomed to the LED readout. <P>

 

If the two cameras - F3 and FM3A - were built to the same standards, for the same purposes, it might very well be a different story. But as it is, I have to agree with Doug Green. The F3HP is the best bargain going. That's my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got an F3HP, FM, and FM2n, and I've handled an FM3a a bit

(and used an EL extensively years ago which has the same meter display

as the FM3a/FE/FE2).

<p>

Advantages of F3:

<ul>

<li>Viewfinder is <em>much</em> easier to use for me with my

eyeglasses. I can easily see all four corners of the screen at once.

<li>Much, much better build quality. You need to handle both

to appreciate this. Press on the back. Advance the film.

The FM/FE series cameras have a film

advance that feels like a plastic disposable camera in

comparison to the silky smooth F3. (it's still nice in

comparison to many other cameras). The F3's shutter is

speced to last three times as long as the FM3a's (150,000 cycles

versus 50,000 cycles).

<li>Much nicer motor drive. The MD-4 is faster, sturdier, quieter,

less battery-hungry, and much less jam-prone than the MD-12.

And it can even rewind the film!

<li>Interchangable finders. I use the DW-3 quite a bit, for

macro and candids.

<li>True mirror lock up.

<li>100% finder

<li>Full line of exotic professional accessories, most of which

you probably won't use (e.g. 250 exposure back, wider

variety of focusing screens).

<li>Can mount old non-AI lenses.

<li>Easy to find anywhere on the sliding scale of

beat up and cheap to minty new and expensive (but nearly impossible to

find brand new with warranty)

<li>Lighted meter display for use in dark locations, though the

light switch is ergonomically awful.

</ul>

Advantages of the FM3a

<ul>

<li>Faster shutter

<li>Faster flash sync

<li>More standard flash shoe (though used dedicated flashes for the

F3 are cheap these days)

<li>4 ounces lighter

<li>Uses the same motor drive as your FE, so you can share a

drive between them.

<li>Nicer metering display (like your FE).

<li>Easy to find new under warranty (but hard to find

used bargains)

<li>All shutter speeds available without batteries, versus

one shutter speed on the F3 (but if you change the batteries

every two years on either camera, you'll never run out of

power).

</ul>

<p>

If I could have only one, I'd certainly take the F3 in

a heartbeat. But there are arguments to be made for

the FM3a, especially if you don't wear glasses and

you do use flash a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both an FM3a and an F3HP and must correct Richard on one minor

point: the weight difference is 7 ounces, not 4, and that's with

batteries installed in both cameras. And I have a question: what's

your source for the 50,000 cycles figure on the FM3a shutter?

 

Finally-and this is subjective- the FM3a feels built to a better

standard than the several other FM and FE series cameras I've owned,

and they weren't exactly chopped liver! I can't detect much difference

between my FM3a and F3HP in terms of wind smoothness, solidity of the

back, etc. The motors are another story: the plastic toy-like MD12 is

not one of Nikon's better creations and I've gone through a bunch of

them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an F3HP and an FM (body size comparable to FM3a). My personal opinion :

F3 : 100% reliable (I even tend to forget there is a battery inside, that's how long that battery lasts...), fits my hands like a dream, simple and well placed controls, wonderful viewfinder (HP). May be a tad heavier than the FM3a, but thanks to the exquisite hand fit this goes unnoticed. With the MD-4 mounted on it you could even forget to put the camera down before going to bed. Verrry smooth winding lever. Has proven to BE a very robust camera. Sexy camera - looks good even by today's standards.

 

FM (FM3a for that matter) : smaller body means beautifully compact and nimble, but more difficult to grip (and I have rather smallish hands!). Grip is better with the MD-12 mounted. Better flash sync (but I never use flash anyway). Probably a robust body. Pretty smooth winding lever on FM3a. Looks boring. Apart from the hybrid shutter it also IS a boring camera.

 

Conny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this review says it all:

 

http://www.geocities.com/heidoscop/f3.htm

 

I'm an F3HP shooter. I had a chance to handle the FM3A in B&H the other day. It is indeed a fine camera but does not have the heft and quality feel of the F3HP.

 

Now if Nikon could only make the F3S with 1/250 flash, TTL hotshoe and full mechanical backup... Seriously, if you don't care about flash, I'd go with the F3HP in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite its many virtues, the F3 can be problematic to find in acceptable condition.They were pricey in their day, which meant relatively few lived lives as lightly used amateur cameras. Instead, most I see are high-rollage retirees that spent too much time on MD4 drives.Keep in mind, too, that F3 sales declined sharply once AF models with their better flash and metering systems took centre stage.What's left in used pool are mostly older cameras, many of them smoked(contra Doug).Compared to the FM-FE variants, it's a bigger, heavier camera, which for some equates with "better," but its slow synch speed and break prone electronics make it a poor choice. Great camera, granted, but who cares if it's near death and expensive to repair? My FEs and FM2Ns have been through it and never failed. There's no reason to think the FM3A will let the side down.If you like the FE, the new one will feel like home.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I prefer the F3, for all the excellent reasons stated by those who have gone before me. However, if your primary purpose is a 'second body' for different film, I'd give strong consideration to that body being as close to identical to your first one for handling considerations.

 

I'm something of a Nikon 'collector'; I use all the stuff I own but I'm starting to notice how often my mind has to 'shift gears' to remember how one body differs from another when I'm shooting. I'm afraid this means I'll now be seeking identical 'companion' bodies for some of my favorites (damn this NAS.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<cite>one minor point: the weight difference is 7 ounces, not 4</cite>

<p>

Per the specs downloadable at the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com">

Nikon USA Website</a>, the FM3a weighs 20.1 ounces, and the F3HP weighs

24.7 ounces. That's 4.6 ounces different, by my calculations, so

I was a bit wrong. It's closer to 5 than to 4, but it's

closer to 4 than it is to 7. It's small, in any case.

<p>

As for 150,000 cycles versus 50,000 cycles, go to www.google.com

and type <cite>nikon 150000 cycles</cite> in the search window.

Repeat, typing <cite> nikon 50000 cycles</cite> this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are SO MANY F3s out there in the 2nd hand market that you can EASILY find one in whatever condition you like. There are even MINT ones out there, if you want to pay over $700 for one. However, for under $400 from reputable sellers, you won't have any problem finding a very nice one.

 

I've paid $250 for an F3hp in VG/Ex shape, and I've paid $325 for an F3hp in Ex+ shape, both on ebay.

 

One thing I've noticed is that it's EASY to find a nice, Ex+ F3HP with an MD-4 motor for well under $500. Probably even easier than finding one WITHOUT the motor. Chances are, it will be missing the Drive Coupling Cover, which means the camera won't be light-tight if the motor is removed, however those parts are still available new from Nikon USA for under $20. And, as others have stated, if you want a motorized body, the MD-4 is far superior to the FM/Fe series MD-12. Another Supply and Demand used market anomaly: Used MD-4 motors cost the same used as MD-12 motors, despite the MD-4 being a FAR superior product.

 

IMHO, the only major functional area where the FM3a or FE2 is a better choice is as a flash camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard: maybe the last batch of F3HPs were lighter! Put mine back on

the postal scale, still 27 oz, Checked spec page of my manual: says

760 grams, which divided by 28= 27.14. Then did the google search you

suggested, could find nothing specific to the FM3a shutter, though

lots about other models, mostly hearsay. Gave up after ten minutes,

though, so my theory that that oft-repeated number derives from an

ancient test of the Copal-S shutter used in the original FM remains

unproven.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used both and eventually gave up on F3HPs for FM3As. Yes, the F3 build quality is nice, it feels like it could take a hammering. The HP viewfinder is also nice. But what turned me completely off the F3 was the truly horrible LCD meter display in the viewfinder. It just took me much longer (seconds instead of milliseconds) for my puny brain to read, evaluate and act on the information it was trying to present. The illumination button for it on the side of the housing is so bad its pitiful - defeating the point of its existence. Its a shame. The F3 is converted from an ergonomic marvel to an exercise in annoyance by this usability footbullet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nate,

 

Personally i think both are worth having, so why choose? But anyway, something not mentioned(i think) is the fact that the FM3a is THE perfect backup body. I think even in 20 years or so when im schlepping some stupid digital batery-sucking bzoembzoem-thing around i would still have a b&w film-loaded FM3a with me(or my FM2/T).

 

Greetings,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father offered me his F3 when I bought him a D100. I didn't take him up on his offer. The FM3A is light and easy to carry with you almost all the time, works at all speeds without batteries, gives me better control of exposure with its match needle. Other areas where it is superior: flash X-sync (1/250 vs 1/90), standard flash shoe, 1/4000 top speed.

 

Areas where the F3 is superior: 100% viewfinder coverage, interchangeable prisms, real mirror lock-up, built-in eyepiece blinds. The F3 body is more robust (although it is debatable if the added solidity will be of practical use, specially since the FM3A's lightness means it is less likely to be dropped), but the same may not be true of its electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twenty years after it was introduced, you can still hear, from time to time and here and there - including, in this thread - the echo of suspicion toward the F3's electronics. This, despite its track record for reliability and its being in production longer than any other camera body (from any company, including Leica) that I know of. <P>

 

I think the explanation for this lies in a combination of factors. One of these is the fact that the F3 replaced what was arguably the best SLR ever, the much loved, all mechanical, F2. The F3 was the first Nikon to offer automatic exposure, and the first, as well, to offer metering built into the body (as opposed to the prism). And at the time of its introduction, all of this "high tech" was highly suspect in the eyes of devoted F2 users. To many of them, it still is.<P>

 

Add to this the second factor: that, in all likelihood, the first run of F3's was problematic (precisely because they did incorporate cutting-edge technology), resulting in reports of the electronics shorting out in certain environments (places that were warm and wet, mostly) - before Nikon got the bugs worked out.<P>

 

The FM3A was actually developed to replace the F3. Nikon needed something to cater to manual focus users, but doubtless needed to come up with a body that involved lower cost of goods / higher margins; and, one that wouldn't further canibalize sales of its high-end electronic SLRs (F80, F100, F5) - hence, the FM3A was introduced and the F3HP retired (after almost twenty years). <P>

 

When you look at the meter from the standpoint of the 1982 pro, it makes a lot more sense: this pro carried an external meter, and, because he was a pro, also carried a meter in his head that was probably pretty accurate. So the F3 meter functions more as an exposure confirmation, than it does a little dictator of settings. It seems Nikon reserved match-needle metering for bodies that were intended for less expert use. At least, this is, to me, the logic of the various meters after having used them. I get the feeling that I'll become a great deal more adept with the LED meter readout as I become more confident with determining exposure factors on my own. And in any case, the F3 meter has been easier for me to use than is the meter in my FM2N.<P>

 

I just think that the F3HP is a pleasure to use and so well built, that it will likely outlast you, Nate.

I've been planning for some time to switch to Leica rangefinders as my main kit, reserving SLRs for macro and telephoto work. In order to keep the look of the images consistent, I was going to eventually trade in my Nikon gear for Leica R. But I like the F3 so much, I'm going to seriously consider sticking with that for SLR use. In fact, I might even decide that a couple of F3's are all I really need. File this under "personal testimonial".<P>

 

It's a tough choice you've set for yourself, but one with an easy outcome: you can't go wrong with either the F3HP or the FM3A. I think you'll be well served no matter which one you pick. Good luck deciding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings on the metering system:

 

It is very accurate and hasn't let me down yet. The +/- type readout is the same as the F2AS or the FM2n except its on an LCD instead of LEDs. Seems easy enough to comprehend to me. Yes I wish it were easier to see in the dark but it doesn't kill my night vision either.

 

What I also like is that the meter is weighted 80/20 instead of the usual 60/40. If you do the math, you'll quickly realize that the 12mm circle can be regarded under most conditions as a spot meter. I can honestly say that I have not missed one shot because of metering. Yes I shoot exclusively on slide film such as Velvia. I also own a Gossen Luna Pro hand meter but I haven't really had much use for it other to confirm accurate meter readings from my camera.

 

My feelings on the electronics:

 

I shoot natural subjects. I live on the "Wet Coast" of Canada in Vancouver. The electronics in my F3HPs have not failed me yet in the rainforests of the West. These cameras don't get dunked but they do get rained on. I use them as tools not as collector pieces.

 

Now onto the FM3A. I don't think its fair to compare to the 22 year track record of the F3HP. The electronics in this camera might be complete garbage. Who can tell for a camera that's been out for one year? Yes it should work on mechanical speeds (a real bonus!) but my backup camera would be more useful in the real world.

 

Nate: you should really check these cameras out for yourself. The FE is a nice camera and you might be surprised how much better built it is than the FM3A (FM2n and FE2 too).

 

Not to deviate off topic but an even better match for you might be an original FM. Take the money you save and treat yourself to a lens or two. This camera will be much easier to "switch gears" with from an FE. I'd sooner spend half the money on an FE and an FM than one FM3A!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>The FE is a nice camera and you might be surprised how much better built it is than the FM3A (FM2n and FE2 too).</i>

<p>

I have both an original FM and a new FM3a. For about a 7 year period I also had an FM2, and FE and an FE2. I used them daily. The FM3a is built every bit as well as the other bodies. I'm holding my original FM...one of the first production runs...in one hand and the FM3a in the other. Except for cosmetic differences, they feel the same...exactly.

<p>

Now the F3 is another body altogether, and I have no opinion of that model. I've never used one.

<p>

I'm also bewildered by people who shun the FM3a in favor of the FM2. To me the FM3a is an improved FM2...basically the same body with just the perfect amount of electronics. They could have called it the FE-3 F3A, FME...whatever. It's a great little body. If you love your FE, Nate, you'll go banana's over the FM3a. Do you need a 100% finder and mirror lockup (which the FM3a has via the self timer), and a removable prism?? If you do get the F3. If you think you're missing out on something by not having those features, you probably don't really have a need for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, the reason that someone would prefer an FM2 (or more likely, an FM2n) to an FM3a is that it probably costs $200 less

 

To me, the combination of an an Ex+ FE-2 and an Ex+ FM for the same money as a single new FM3a body is a much more functional result - because I get 2 bodies, which is what I prefer to work with for reasons of keeping 2 different films handy to shoot with - usually color and B&W, or else slow slide film and faster color negative film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...