FM3a vs F6

<p>Hello ladies and gents<br>

I'm a relatively inexperienced (2-3 yrs film and DSLR) but enthusiastic amatuer photographer living in the UK. I have an excellent condition fm3a, and a number of manual/AF lenses (including a tamron macro lens). It has been on my mind for a few weeks now to trade-in my fm3a, and probably most of my current lenses, for the still available f6 and a good wide-angle zoom AF lens, while it is still currently possible to buy the f6 brand new, as oppose to second-hand. <br>

Basically, i am very keen to know what other, much more experienced Nikon film camera users would think about doing this [crazy thing!?].... I bought the fm3a with the specific intention to do some simple astro-photography, but this has never really taken-off for me and i am now much more passionate about general photography (landscape and portraites and candid shots), which of course i do use my fm3a for. I am essentially very happy with my fm3a. It's a lovely solid little camera, smooth reliable performer, and i've taken plenty of shots that i'm very happy with. I understand the f6 is a Pro' model, Pro' with a capital 'P'!!! Truth be told i don't need a 'Pro' capability camera. But both accurate auto-focus and really good ttl metering appeal to me, and general superior build and features ... and i really like the thought of getting the f6 brand new, and a good lens, while one still can. <br>

One thing that i do wonder about is, which of the two cameras should i expect to stand the test of time? I am in my late 30s and would like to think that i could still be using a good film camera for many many years, into my 70s perhaps?!?! That's assuming 35mm film is still around come then!!!! <br>

Should i be loyal to my little fm3a, and it's wee family of lenses? Or should i make the decision and opt for Nikon's 'flagship' film camera and a really good lens? Would the quality between the two cameras really show, given time and experience? Is it likely that i would have any major regrets by doing either?? <br>

I realise this is very likely to boil-down to a very personal decision, but does anyone - on either side of the Atlantic, or anywhere really - have an opinion about what i am thinking about? <br>

Thoughts and opinions greatly valued and appreciated<br>

Donald</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 2 cameras are very different, obviously. Only you can decide which type suits you better. But the FM3A is a truly great camera, and I would be very reluctant to part with (either of) mine.</p>

<p>I'd keep everything and buy an F100. You can easily find a minty F100 for around $200. This really is a no brainer; if you sell your gear, you'll almost certainly take a bigger loss than $200. I have an F6. I bought it after someone gave me a perfectly good F100. It's worth skipping a digital model in order to buy the best and last F series camera, IMO, but the F100 has all the automation that you need and you won't have to give up anything in order to get it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You suffer from what is called "Nikon Acquisition Syndrome", or NAS for short. You want the state-of-the-art 35mm camera and nothing less will do. Golfers buy putters like Tiger Woods uses, others buy cameras.</p>

<p>If you want great metering and fast, accurate auto-focus, then an F100 will give you nearly as much as you will ever need for about $350. For marginally better metering, faster focusing, and a really solid build, you can get an F5 for not much more. Then too, you can pass Go and get the camera of your dreams.</p>

<p>As for longevity, I think my D2x will outlast my F5 - its build quality is every bit as good. It may be obsolete by D3 standards, but I can still stand up to my competition and make money with it. Neither the D2x nor an F5 (or F6) is likely to come apart at the seams in a lifetime, but they may all rust in the back of a closet.</p>

<p>Leo and Edward have a good idea with the F100. It's a great camera. </p>

<p>I will not depart with the FM3A, it is a great manual camera,will outlast any of the mentioned cameras above,and you can improve your "wee" collection with really good Nikkor AI and AIS fixed focal lenses. You can find these lenses from a trusted source as www.kehcamera.com , their reputation is solid and their products are well categorized,when they grade something as EX or EX+,expect the product to be of of almost "as new" condition.<br>

Besides, the FM3A has gone up in prices since is not longer in production.</p>

<p>RA</p>

<p>Having both would be ideal. I have neither, but have used both, and I use an OM-3 and a Fuji S5 for most of my photography. Appart from being film vs. digital, the mood I'm in decides what camera to pick. Technology is great, but sometimes, less technology, like in the FM3A (or the OM-3), feels better.<br>

The F6 is the best camera I've used ever from an ergonomical point of view, and I've used all current Nikon bodies. That alone, and the pleasure using the "ultimate film machine" may be enough reason to buy one. Will your photography improve? Not much, except the shots that require fast AF. But again, the experience counts as well.<br>

A used F100 is certainly better value for money, as has been mentioned above, but if the ultimate experience is what you're after, there's no way around the F6. I always found the F5 too bulky, at least for amateur use, but that's me. For work, it may be another story. I don't use film for work, but would prefer a D3 over a D700 for that, mostly because of the integrated vertical grip.<br>

Written down over 20 or 30 years, the cost per day for an F6 isn't bad at all. If you can afford it, I would go for the F6, but I would keep the FM3A as well. They are both the best within their category.</p>

<p>I miss FM3a, I sold it while ago and regretted it ever since. It was the most joyful experience I've had with a camera.</p>

<p>I just got my first Nikon body a year ago, a used D2X. My first real pro level camera after 25 years of photography, and I love it. I also have a full frame Kodak SLRn to go with it. A couple of months ago was the first time I did some research on the F6 and of course I came down with NASitis, and I was only looking at used ones! Well I gave my head a shake, not having used 35mm film in over 2 years, (I know Velvia 50 is back and so is Ektar 100), and got over it. There is just so much more that can be done with $2000, or more. When a used one becomes available for under $800, which maybe never, then I'd have to think about it again.</p>

<p>The fact is you cannot tell the difference from a shot taken with a Nikon F, Nikon FM, Nikon F6 or any other Nikon film camera using the same lens and film. The experience from behind the viewfinder may be a little different and maybe you may create successful exposures 3% more often, but can you really justify that expense? </p>

<p>I have both the FM3A and the F6 (also all the pro F bodies and compact bodies). There are situations when I like a small manual focus camera then others where I like the F6. I have the battery grip for the F6 which makes it quite large (like the F5), but I have big hands and like the feel. However when removed the F6 becomes rather compact. A great combo for the FM3A is the 45 f/2.8 (which was introduced with it). <br>

The main reason I don't use the FM3A as much is mine is basically mint and is now worth about 3x what I paid for it.</p>

 

<p>Impossible to decide. I guess for me I would go with the F6 since I own lenses for it already (I shoot Nikon AF) but the FM3A is a beautiful little camera.. I bought one brand new and the film door was floppy. I sent it back and then while I was still thinking about it they all dissappeared..I wish I would have just sent it in to Nikon and had them tighten the door up. The F100 is a good idea but it would be a pleasure to own a new F6..Only you can decide which would work best with your style..The F6 obviously will have much more advanced functions.</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of the F6, which I had, then sold, then bought again. Barring a big reversal of fortune, I will not part from it any more.The F5 is great, but it's big, heavy and bulky, and its VF is a bit on the untidy side. Like others, I think the F6 IS the ultimate film camera, it's so solid and well built, its ergonomics are almost perfect, and its metering and AF are almost foolproof. And it's so well damped that you feel absolutely no vibrations whatsoever when you press the shutter release. Unless you have no inclination or sensibility for quality, it's hard not to feel good when using it. But sometimes, I will rather grab my F3HP and a couple of AI lenses and head out. Small camera, manual focussing, taking your time, cranking the buttery film advance lever, hearing the so sweet clonk of the shutter, which makes you believe you have just taken a masterpiece photo every time, just pure fun. What I mean is do everything you can to keep your FM3A AND get a F6. Tall order, I know, but anything less will leave you wondering.</p>

<p>I think it really depends upon your financial situation. If spending 2,000 US dollars on a film camera is no big deal, then by all means, get the F6. I bought one when my FM wasn't working so well, and I wanted fast auto focus and the great Nikon lighting system features. I don't regret getting the F6. But if spending 2,000 would really hurt the pocket book, then better to just keep your fm3a. It, too, is a great camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The experience from behind the viewfinder may be a little different and maybe you may create successful exposures 3% more often, but can you really justify that expense?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question. It's true if you can't spare money for the F6 that the FM10 exposes film just fine for less.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just got my first Nikon body a year ago, a used D2X. My first real pro level camera after 25 years of photography, <strong>and I love it</strong> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly; it's an experiential thing.</p>

<p>And keep in mind the D2X cost more than $4000 three years ago, whereas the F6 is less than half as much today [On edit I see it's gone up in price since I bought mine.] In fact the F6 is the cheapest Nikon pro body still in production and wll probably retain its value for the longest. It's also the last of its kind. When you buy an F6 you own the last and best and to heck with all the rest, whereas when you scrimp and save to buy a D700, there'll be a D800 and a D900 after that, and so on, and when you're dead and buried people will be shooting shiny C300's, as if to spite you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two points bear mentioning in addition to all the valid thoughts uttered above. <br>

You specifically asked which of these two cameras would stand the test of time over a 40 year period, and the answer of course is easy: the FM3A, because of its hybrid shutter. In a few decades, batteries for the F6 will be unavailable or a speciality item ( or a kludge solution will be found ), but the FM3A doesn't need them. Throw in a Sekonic L-398A selenium meter and a stash of film and it's a post-apocalyptic set.<br>

The auto exposure and autofocus capabilities of the F6 have been justifiably lauded, but there's one unique feature that I value in mine: It can imprint date ? time and / or exposure information on the leader and between frames. A good learning tool and it helps to order the negs. These sensible functions together with a clear and large viewfinder have helped me use mine as a street camera and <a href="http://mostlyblackandwhite.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/shoot-loose/">shoot loose</a>. It's not foolproof though ( inadvertend double exposure by putting a film in twice ):<br>

<img src="http://mostlyblackandwhite.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/f635_310109_34_vue.jpg?w=450&h=297" alt="" /><br>

If you want my advice: get both, but get a used but good F6 from an amateur or a respectable dealer. They can be had below a thousand dollars.</p>

 

<p>I have both, the FM3a and also the F6. I bought the FM3a new (maybe the last black one in Canada) and the F6 refurbished from B+H. I'd definitely keep the FM3a, as you would probably regret selling it soon and might loose money getting another one. I'd look for a refurbished or used F6 in good condition. Most of the time though, the FM3a with its small prime lenses goes on the road, the AF versions of the Nikon lenses are much bulkier and don't get used as much. I just found a 20 mm f/3.5 AiS on the big auction site, 52 mm filter diameter... If you know a little bit on how to deal with integral metering rather than matrix in some extreme situations, you won't find any difference in the results between the FM3a and the F6 for many motifs. Only time that might not be true would be sports photography or Nature photography with the VR lenses.<br>

Christoph</p>

<p>Cameras are like cars - they start depreciating from the moment you take them out of the dealer's showroom. The little FM3a is more mechanical, and the one most likely to last the decades. Just ask a Nikon F or F2 user about longevity. I use a 1983 vintage F3 which is still running strong. It even has its original meter readout LCD, which Nikon thought would have to be replaced every 7 years or less. Many people report that these have lasted decades. Mine is still going strong after 26 years.</p>

<p>With any camera, the electronics are the most likely to fail with time, and the circuit boards are probably not going to be available in the coming decades. Although the F6 may be the finest of the AF film Nikons, I don't think it will ultimately last as long as the FM3a. The older cameras such as the F2 used discrete electronic components (i.e. individual resistors, etc.) which are replaceable. All the newer cameras use more and more integrated circuits, some of which are custom made and unlikely to be available in the future. As an aside - can you still purchase Intel 286 CPU chips? What's the likelihood that Intel or any chip maker will still make the same chip 30 years from now?</p>

<p>I would stick with the FM3a, and put the money towards more lenses, if anything. Oh, and also more film.</p>

<p>I'd not part with good MF lenses too readily, especially to go to a zoom. I have an F6 and it's the best camera I've used. One of the reasons I bought it was for a very good level of compatibility with my MF lenses, some of which are better than the current AF ones.</p>

<p>F6: Great, great camera, but almost certainly wasted on any amateur photog, unless you have great technique and will use it EVERY day.</p>

<p>As others have said, If you want an af camera, much more sense to buy an F100 OR F90X...and some nicer lenses? If in the future you want an F6, they will always be available...do not fall into the trap of 'must have it now' syndrome...the new price of the F6 recently rose from about 1299 GBP to 1699 GBP....</p>

<p>I'd go for the FM3 and an F100. I have an FM2 and an F100 and I like to have both, i.e. there are situations in which I love the manual everything FM2 and situations in which I love the auto something to almost all everything of the F100. When I sold my worn out F90, I thought I could live with the FM2 only, but I soon realised it was not the case and I bought the F100.</p>

<p>I expect the FM3A will be operational much longer than the F6. It's simpler, and with less parts and less electronics, there's less to go wrong. Even if batteries become unavailable, the FM3A will still work, albeit without an internal meter. Same goes for MF lenses. I sold a Leica III-f when it was over 50 years old. It still worked fine. There's a lot to be said for the durability of manual cameras.</p>

<p>I'm still using Zeiss Super Ikontas - one of them from about 1937. These old mechanical cameras can be kept in good repair by any competent technician. They will continue from the 20th century, through the 21st and beyond.</p>

<p>They don't call the FM3a "the poor man's Leica" for nothing. It's capable or producing world class images, still. I know photojournalists who continue to use it an alternaative in extreme conditions (such as the -50 windchills were experience up North). I bought mine and a full array of lenses on e-Bay, for peanuts. Shoot several rolls of slide film through it every year, just for old time's sake.</p>

<p>Donald, unless your decision will be based upon financial considerations, the F6 is THE world-class film camera. It is different, though, from the FM3a. It is obviously a very electronic camera. That being said, it is very tough, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it in challenging environments as you would with a fully mechanical camera. If fact, I think the F6 is more weather-resistant regarding moisture and dust.</p>

<p>But, it comes down to this. You only live once--carpe diem. I was so very satisfied to get a brand new F6...knowing nobody else had used (or abused) it. All these 35mm film cameras are capable of taking exactly the same image, but if I had bought a new or used F100 instead of the F6, I'd be occasionally wishing I'd have just bought my original choice in the first place.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Donald, I'm going to suggest that you keep your FM3A and rather than get the F6, get a D300 DSLR. You can use your MF lenses on the D300. The D300 shares the same AF system as the professional D700/D3 cameras. With these two cameras, the FM3A & the D300, you would still have the pleasure of using a mechanical FM3A film camera and enjoy the process of crafting your photos. If however you desired an instantaneous result, the D300 is your tool. Having said all this, I don't believe either the F6 or any DSLR you acquire today will last into your 70's (unless of course you're approaching that age) but if your no where near your 70s, the FM3A is the definite keeper.</p><div></div>