New to SLRs : Info on FM3a (sorry bit long!)

[dave_osborne]

Hi there, as of earlier today I knew nothing about SLRs so please

forgive the stupid questions! I've been reading the forums for hours

and got some great info.

 

I have been a rangefinder (bessaR) user for some time but have just

got to the stage I've just about had enough of various problems and

want to try to replicate my setup with RELIABLE Nikon SLR kit.

 

This means 2 bodies and 3 primes (for reference I have 28/1.9 + 50/1.5

+ 90/4 (but I wish this was a bit longer i.e. 135)). I am very

confused about the Nikon lens families.

 

I'm used to manual focus so see no need to head down the AF route -

any body I get should at least have good metering built in (good as in

RELIABLE - I have off an camera spot for difficult exposures).

I occasionaly use an on camera flash. I'd like to do some macro work

with this new camera too. I travel a lot with my cameras (so small is

good) and take landscape, portraits, street scenes etc - not too much

in the way of fast action (although I do dabble occasionaly).

 

From my photo.net crash course today I think a FM3a sounds like a good

choice as my main body - not too expensive, the AE features would be a

hi-tech bonus for me compared to what I'm used to and I like the idea

of mechanical operation too. I have a few questions I'd love if

someone could help me with:-

 

1. Does anyone have any problems as a glasses wearers with the

viewfinder on the FM* range?

 

2. For a backup body I was thinking a cheap FM2n - sound reasonable?

Can anyone suggest a more suitable backup? (cheap but reliable with

metering)

 

3. I have lots of 52mm filters - is it the case a lot (most?) nikon

primes have a 52mm filter thread too..? (please god)

 

4. Can you point me at 3 *super-sharp* lenses in the above focal

length to look at? (I really have no clue about this at the moment but

is the most important to get right for me) Can I get a longer focal

length as macro too? What are the best lens mounts to be looking for?

 

5. Can you use IR film in the FM3a? (i.e. does it ping any IR sensors

around the inside?)

 

Emm, that'll do for the moment I think - apologies again for the

longwinded post - quite a lot for me to take in!

 

Thanks in advance,

Dave.

[Michael R Freeman]

2. For a backup body I was thinking a cheap FM2n - sound reasonable? Can anyone suggest a more suitable backup? (cheap but reliable with metering)

 

> Good choice.

 

3. I have lots of 52mm filters - is it the case a lot (most?) nikon primes have a 52mm filter thread too..? (please god)

 

> Yes. Most Nikkor manual focus primes in the 20mm - 200mm range take 52mm filters, including (but not limited to) 20/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/2, 105/2.5, 105/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/4.

 

4. Can you point me at 3 *super-sharp* lenses in the above focal length to look at?

 

> Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS (and only AIS), 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 AI/AIS, 105/2.5 AI/AIS (or 105/2.8 Micro for macro work)

 

5. Can you use IR film in the FM3a? (i.e. does it ping any IR sensors around the inside?)

 

> Yes. No IR sensors/

[klix]

FM3A is a good choice. FM2N is a good back up.

 

52mm filters - a lot of AI/AIS lenses take them

 

28/2.8 AIS is a classic.

 

50/1.4 or 1.8 AIS are always good buys.

 

90mm - no 90mm, but an excellent and reasonable 85mm/2.0 AIS

 

Macro - This is where Nikon really shines - 60mm, 105mm, 200mm. Google for the best version.

 

Check this out for soem USED cameras and lenses.

 

http://www.keh.com/shop/class.cfm?bid=NK&sid=newused&crid=12745885

 

 

KL

[Guest]

2. Yes. Some AF cameras make good MF cameras, too, and have gizmos that the FM2n and its like won't have. But you need to be pretty familiar with Nikons to assess them all - and clear about what you want.

<P>

3. Many do, and going MF for lenses widens the choice significantly. Most obviously if you're going to swap like for like, the Nikkor 28/2 takes a 52mm filter, and I can't think of a 50mm that doesn't. Longer than that, 85/2, 105/2.5, 200/4, off the top of my head.

<P>5. Can't think why you couldn't, as it's manual film transport. But someone will know for sure.

<P><a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/htmls/knowledge_main.htm">Photography in Malaysia</a> - a gift from the gods if you have old Nikons.<P>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html">Bj�rn R�rslett's lens evaluations</a> - thought highly of, and he's clear why he gives the evaluations he does (they're also shooter's evaluations, looking at flare, etc., not MTF mine's better than yours nonsense).

<P><a href="http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon.html">Roland Vink's lens specifications</a> - including filter sizes.

<P>These are fantastically useful and reliable sites. You can't go wrong.<P>Out of curiosity, what's up with the Bessa R? Is it the camera, or do you just not care for RFs any more? I do like my VC lenses, though.

[jwittenberg]

Hi Dave -

 

As an FM3A owner I can say I really like this camera. As to your questions:

 

 

1) The FM3A is not a high-eyepoint camera - the manual says it's 14mm, and I think that high-eyepoint starts at the mid-20s or higher (the F100 is 21mm and I don't think it's considered a high-eyepoint camera). What does this mean to you? You might have trouble seeing the entire viewfinder w/o moving your eye; I don't know, I have no trouble seeing the whole viewfinder (w/o glasses). On the plus side, a lower eyepoint is in some ways easier to view (might be brighter? not sure, I don't have an e.g., F3HP).

 

2) I've heard lots of suggestions for using an FM2 (or FM2n) as a backup, but I've never used one. I might go for a plain FM since it will mount non-AI lenses (the FM2, FM2n, and FM3A will not - at least not officially (some non-AIs will mount w/o problems on them, but you have to _carefully_ check). But if you don't have any non-AIs and don't plan to get any, then this isn't important.

 

3) Many, many Nikkor primes use 52mm filter threads. Virtually all of mine do, except the long fast ones.

 

4) I use and like the 28mm f/2.0 AI (AIS is apparently good as well). The 28mm f/2.8 AIS (only! not the AI) is also supposed to be good. I'm also partial to the 50mm f/2.0 AI, although almost any of the manual 50mm lenses should be good (well, the AF f/1.8 is also good, but why not go manual for the FM2A?). If you want longer then 85mm, the 105mm f/2.5 (gauss) is _wonderful_. The 135mm f/2.8 is also very good. Various 85mms are also considered good performers, but the only (manual) 85 I have is the 85mm f/1.8 non-AI, which is very good. Some report good things about the 85mm f/2.0, some don't. Longer still, the 200mm f/4.0 is quite good, and it _still_ uses 52mm filters!

 

 

I strongly suggest looking at www.naturfotograf.com for far better advice than I could ever give you.

 

 

I have large hands, so I like a grip on my FM3A, although I don't know of any which are still being made (I got mine from http://www.photoequip.net/_forms/fm-grip.htm, but I don't think he's still making them - but check anyway. Call him to make sure, the website is not always up to date.). Try the FM3A w/o the grip and see what you think.

 

 

 

5) No idea.

 

 

Enjoy,

 

 

/joel

[Guest]

Lens families and ompatibility can be unnecessarily complicated. Unless you get an F, or an older F2 or something, you can use any AI/AIS lens on any FE/FM/FA/F3 type camera (to limit things to MF). On a camera where you set the aperture using the dial (or on a camera where you're using an exposure mode that requires you to do so), you can't use an AF G-type lens, because it doesn't have an aperture ring. But you can use other AF lenses.

 

In other words, don't worry until you've narrowed down your camera choice. There's no shortage of AI/AIS and AF non-G lenses you can use. The older, pre-AI lenses aren't so common, and they look quite different, so in practise you're unlikely to get any nasty surprises. It's only a minefield if you've got several vastly different Nikons and a mixed bag of lenses forty years apart.

 

AIS lenses are newer than AI and have a shorter focus throw. Mostly the optical formula is the same, sometimes it's different, hence the recommendation for the 28/2.8 AIS, not the AI. The 'S' bit is something to do with marking focal length for cameras that can choose hgher shutter speeds in program mode for longer lenses.

 

It's nice we have a choice. I liked my old 35/1.4 AIS because of its speed in handling. If I had a macro lens or did telephoto shoots from tripods, AI would be ideal because of the finer focusing control the longer throw affords.

[bob oldendorf]

You're on the right track.

 

I've used all of the FM/FE family EXCEPT the FM3a.

 

1) I've had no problem with the viewfinders (with my -4diopter eyeglasses )

 

2) The FM2 is a great backup. The "n" version is the one to have ("FM2n");

it has some significant improvements (faster sync speed, for one) over the

older "FM2". (The youngest original FM2 is over 20 yrs old now, whereas

there are quite recent FM2ns around.)

 

2a) For a backup body, I find that I prefer the FE-2; the benefits of automation

and TTL outweigh the minor drawback of battery-dependence.

 

3) YES, most Nikon lenses take 52mm.

 

4a) In the wides, the 28/2.8 AIS is the most highly spoken of - this is the

version that focuses to .2m. Not the similar "AI" version or the AF.

 

4b) in the 'normal' range, it's usually said that the 50/1.8 and 50/2 have less

distortion than the 50/1.4. Each speed exists in numerous revisions.

 

4c) in the short teles: the 85/2 AIS is a nice little lens; the 105/2.5 AIS is

probably the most highly regarded, but it exists in several revisions. I'm sure

someone here will know more as to which is THE one to have, but the 105/2.5

AIS that I have is a delight.

 

4d) Macro: Nikon made a 55 (in f/3.5 and /2.8), a 105 (in f/4 and f/2.8), and

200/4. There are couple new AF macros, too. Either 55 makes a wonderful

normal. I find that I don't love the non-macro results with my 105/2.8, but I'm

sure someone will chime in with more experience with more of the macros.

 

4e) Best mount: for the bodies you're looking at, you can't use the original

("non-AI") mount. You need "AI", or the later "AIS" revision. The AIS versions

are later, and tend to be either identical to the AI, or a slight improvement.

I'm sure someone will point out an exception, but I don't know of a lens where

the AI is preferred over the AIS version.

 

5) I don't know.

 

I hope this was helpful, let us know how you make out.

[jwittenberg]

I thought I might also chimne in with a comment about AI and AIS lenses. The AIS lenses are newer, are often slightly smaller and/or lighter, and may or may not have the same optical formula as their AI counterparts (assuming the lens was made in both AI and AIS versions). The AIS lenses allow for slightly different operation on a few Nikon bodies - none of which are the ones you're considering. For more info about AIS operation, check out some of the previously mentioned sites. Sometimes I find that the AI lenses are built a bit more sturdily than the AIS lenses, but keep in mind that the AIS lenses are still wonderfully built anyway. Some AIS lenses have a shorter focusing throw than the AI versions; some like this, some don't. A shorter throw makes them quicker to focus, a longer throw makes them easier to focus accurately. And the AI lenses are often cheaper (sometimes noticeably so).

[scott_mcloughlin]

I'm also a Bessa R (and Leica M6) shooter, and the FM3a is a sturdy, reliable and relatively economical manual SLR. Nice, bright VF with a good magnification for manual focusing. I don't wear glasses. Most (?) MF Nikkors seem to take 52mm filters, with some exceptions for a few of the faster lenses.

 

My own lens kit is 28/2.8 AIS, 45/2.8 AI-P, 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS. The 45 is small, nicely made and brilliant. On the FM3a, it feels like I'm carrying around a more compact, smaller RF camera. I'm happy with all of these lenses in general. No fast lenses in my kit yet, but I've been thinking of trying out a 50/1.2.

 

If I wanted a backup, I'd probably pick another FM3a that I'd purchase used from KEH.

 

Scott

[steve_muntz]

Only thing I can add is that Nikon has diopter eyepiecesas an accessory. These attach in place of the standard eyepiece, and are available in a lot of different strengths. This way, you can put your eye right up to the camera instead of having to look through glasses.

[dave_osborne]

My god you guys are quick.. right I've got a lot of reading to do - but sounds like I'm on the right track though. I'm sure I'll have more questions v shortly.

 

Re the question about the Bessa Rs <slight rant mode>

I've been trying to use them as my main kit for a while and getting slightly miffed at various things I have to do without with a RF system (like macro, grad ND filters, > 135mm lenses to name a few) but what's really put the nail in the coffin for me is the rangefinder accuracy - I've been struggling since day one - with both the bodies - to get something resembling close focus accuracy because the rangefinder is out of alignment.

I've had it "fixed" in service - still miles out - I've tried realigning it myself several times and found when you get it aligned for one lens it's out with the other ones.

I'm probably just in the huff with them now - and I do love the VC lenses and love the idea of a the bessa (and if I could afford it I'd think about a leica!) - but I can't afford to keep losing shots because of the aligment anymore.

 

So back in SLR land I'll be back once I've digested all this info - thanks again!

[vic_.]

Dave,

 

In addition to the above advice, you might also wish to consult Bjorn Rorslett's website (below), click on "lenses" and you'll get his ratings on almost all the nikon lenses:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Since you have a 28mm, consider going wider. Nikon makes good 24mm lenses. I have a 20mm f3.5 and a 24mm f2.0 (most people prefer the f2.8, but my f2.0 is razor sharp). Framing with a SLR is perfect, unlike with rangefinders. Most people would recommend a 24mm f2.8 AIS.

 

Also, go longer than the 90mm that you have. The 105 f2.5 AIS is as sharp as the 90mm f2.8 Leica M lens, and easier to use.

 

Also consider that these AIS lenses will meter with the upcoming D200, and also all the D2H D2X series digital cameras (with a 1.5x multiplier factor). IMO, the D200 will cause a resurgence in the popularity of AIS lenses.

 

If you ever get the chance, try the 85mm f1.4. A peak experience.

 

Best of luck!

[dave_osborne]

That is a great point Vic and something I meant to mention - about likely future compatibility with Nikon digitals. Would be good to know I wouldn't have to start from stratch (again) if I decided to go digital.

[vic_.]

Dave, One thing about Nikon is that they have not abandoned the F mount compatibility, which means that you can use the AIS lenses on the new digital cameras. Only Leica M (I think) has also maintained such a tradition, of not abandoning their loyal base. Something to be said for tradition.

[jose f.]

Until I got all the way down and saw your issues with the Bessa rangefinders, I was going to suggest you build a Nikon kit that was complimentary -- say a body with wider angle lenses (20 or 24), longer ones (180/2.8), and a macro (60 or 100) for close focusing to do things the rangefinder struggles with. Everything else has pretty much been covered. I have strong glasses and use FMs and FEs. The finders aren't as nice as some of the larger, brighter ones, but they are quite usable.

[david_h._hartman]

And the Lord God made the Nikon FM3a to rule the day and the Nikon FM2n he made to rule the night. Then he said what the heck and made the D2 series DSLR(s) also.

 

--with many apogees.

 

---

 

Dave, you'll get the best information on Nikkor lens that I've found on the web at the link Vic gave you just above.

 

---

 

I'll nominate the 105/2.5 AIS, 50/1.8 AI or AIS (early), 28/2.0 AIS, 180/2.8 ED AIS, 20/2.8 AIS and 20/3.5 AIS.

 

The 20/3.5 is not the sharpest in the corners at distance but it is very flare ghost resistant. I almost sold mine but decided to check with Bjorn Rorslett's site. Once I reread his review I knew I'd keep both the 20/2.8 AIS and 20/3.5 AIS. I've got to add the 85/1.4 AIS.

 

I bought a 28/2.0 AIS based on Bjorn's review. Much as I like the 24/2.8, for candids of people I found I was backing off a bit and then cropping to about a 28mm view. The 28/2.0 is Nikon's best all round 28mm manual focus lens. The 28/2.8 AIS is also a great lens but check Bjorn Rorslett's review regarding flare, ghost and corner sharpness at distance. The 28/2.8 AIS is gaining cult status in part because of Ken Rockwell's review. I enjoy Ken's site from time to time but don't base lens purchases on his reviews. Like the 20/3.5 AIS and 20/2.8 AIS it is worth owning both the 28/2.0 AIS and 28/2.8 AIS. Note that all of the 28/2.0 Nikkors have CRC (close range correction) while ONLY the 28/2.8 AIS has CRC.

 

If you are interested in long lenses I'll nominate the 300/4.5 ED AI and 400/5.6 ED AI. Take special note: these are the difficult to locate non-IF versions not the more common ED-IF versions.

 

The 105/2.5 AIS (also AI and IC versions) has cult status also. It's well deserved but the 135/2.8 AIS (also AI) and 85/2.0 AIS are fine lenses and probably under rated. The 85/2.0 AIS does not have CRC so it's not as sharp at close distance as the 85/1.4 AIS. I think the 85/2.0 AI Nikkor has the same optical formula as the 85/2.0 AIS but it has a weird, small, focus ring. I think this was a reaction to the very diminutive Olympus OM lenses.

 

---

 

AIS Nikkors have a shorter, faster throw on the focus ring and a smoother feel. I prefer these for candids, PJ, PR and that type of photography. AI Nikkors have a stiffer feel and longer throw on the focus ring. The long throw gives a longer more useful distance scale and AI Nikkors usually have more graduations on the DOF scale making them better for scale and hyper focal focusing. Generally this means I prefer AIS for lenses longer than 50mm and AI for lenses shorter than 50mm.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Hartman.

[ky2]

Dave you're on a fine route to a fine camera system. I enjoy my Fm3a very much; My recommendations to you reiterate what the others had put in, but what-the-heck:

 

1) I don't wear glasses, but the Fm3a is more than adequate.

 

2) The Fm2N is very reasonable, and quite cheap. As David noted above, it supplments the Fm3A beautifully at night exposure: the Fm3a meter is match needle (which I prefer to anything digital), which is harder to use at low light levels, whereas the Fm2N has leds that remain bright.

 

3) 52mm is pretty much the standard.

 

4) 24/2.8 AIS, 28/2.8 AIS, 35/1.4, 45/2.8P, 50/1.4/1.8/2 AI/AIS, 105/2.5 AI/AIS, 135/2.8, 180/2.8; I have a particular soft spot for the 180, which is a remarkable performer, and a FINE portrait lens on its own. Its filter thread size is 72mm.

 

5) Yes, you can no problem.

[john_morris4]

You're right that the Bessa R and its decendents seem like such a good idea that it's annoying when you hit their limits. The rangefinder is certainly one of their shortcomings. Even when it stays callibrated, it's too short to focus the faster lenses without being extra careful (which means slower). And it has this problem with shifting slightly as you move your eye slightly, so you can focus rightly or not, depending on how you're looking through the finder.

 

I was basically happy with my Bessa R, then I bought a used M4-P. That was good, too, but I sold it again after a couple of months, because I kept thinking that I had a lot of money tied up in something that wasn't amazingly much better than the Bessa (and without a light meter, too). After I sold the Leica, though, I noticed that the Bessa really was harder to focus quickly, and that the Leica had given me more good pictures from the 50mm and 85mm lenses.

 

I have a couple of good manual focus Nikon camera and a handful of good prime Nikkors, and they do well for me. But there are some situations where I really enjoy using a rangefinder camera more, and I seem to get better results that way. For example, I really like the 50mm f/1.5 Nokton on an M3 for pictures of people in the dark. So it's nice to have a choice.

 

Since you're looking at spending money on film cameras, and since Leicas are still holding their value pretty well, and since you mentioned wanting to find similar lenses for your new Nikon, you might consider trying a Leica or a Hexar RF with your LTM lenses. It won't solve your close focus problem, but it should solve your rangefinder issues, and you might really enjoy the combination.

[Robert_Lai]

Dave,<p>

You've received a lot of good advice already. I tend not to be too choosy about the camera body itself, but I do obsess about the lenses. After all, a 35mm camera is a fancy film holder when all is said and done. You don't say that you want to get rid of the Bessas altogether, so I don't see a lot of reason to duplicate what you already have in an SLR. From what I can see, the SLR has advantages with these lenses:<p>Perspective control<p>Macro<p>Telephotos<p>Zoom lenses.<p>Why not concentrate on these?<p>In the wide range, I've got the 28mm f/3.5 PC (Perspective Control, or shift) Nikkor virtually stuck to my camera these days. I've been experimenting with using the shift feature and stitching various frames together to give a superwide view close to that of an 18mm lens - but with the image magnification of a 28mm lens. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E2w7" >Some of my results are in this posting here.</a> <p>Likewise, you could cover the macro angle, telephoto lens, and zoom issues all in one lens with the incredibly sharp 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 ED AF Micro Nikkor. It's costly at about $1000, but it's a lens you'll instantly fall in love with. This is my second most used lens. You may wish to pick up a nice ringflash such as the SB-21 (about $200 new, cheaper used) while you're at it. On a camera such as the FM3a, you'll get TTL flash control, which is pretty essential for macro work. Unfortunately, the FM, FM2 and FM2n don't have TTL flash control.<p>To go longer, you're limited only by your budget. The 300mm f/4 AFS is also a great optic, but you need to throw out the Nikon tripod collar and replace it with one by Kirk to really appreciate the benefits of this lens.<p>As far as superwides go, you're probably better off with the Bessa, as that's where the rangefinders tend to shine. Low light is also said to be a rangefinder strength, but the RF has to be accurate for the fast lenses. Perhaps you should look into a used Leica M6, or the new Zeiss Ikon?

[richard_cochran]

Most points are well covered already. I'll just mention that I'm a long-time user of the FM series (bought my first FM in April of 1980, and it's still in use), and I've been wearing glasses since before I picked up my first camera. I have astigmatism, so diopter corrections aren't an option for me. I found the FM series viewfinders acceptable for a long time, but then one day I peeked through an F3HP viewfinder. I didn't realize what I'd been missing! With the FM, I can't see all four corners of the screen at once. I always have to move my eye around behind the viewfinder to peek at the sides and corners. With the F3HP, I can see the whole frame all at once. That fact alone makes me really prefer the F3HP to the FM and FM2n.

<p>

The amount of eye relief needed is a personal thing. You may find the FM3a entirely adequate. But if you're an eyeglass wearer and if you can get your hands on an F3HP just to see what the fuss is all about, do so!

[dave_osborne]

Thanks Robert.. sorry I see my post was a bit ambiguous - I am indeed planning on REPLACING my bessa system. I wish I could keep it as well but unfortunately I can't afford not to sell it to help pay for the switch to SLR. You are right though that I should be spending most time on the lenses but after my bad experience I want to get it right this time so it's hard not to... I'll just have to obsess about both.

Nice pictures btw.. nice house too!

 

Richard - you've got me thinking now - being able to see the whole viewfinder is something I've always thought of as a somewhat unachievable luxury. Used F3's seem to be very variable in price - considering I'm thinking of having a FM3a as my "posh" body and FM2n as a cheaper backup - where could the F3 fit in? Instead of the FM3a?

 

Call me old fashioned but the thought of a battery reliant body still scares me - are they as reliable as the FM* series?

[dave_osborne]

Ok just in case anyone wondered how it panned out I've made all my purchases now (well I'm sure there will be more)...

 

I found a place in the UK doing special offer on the FM3a new for �265 which frankly I thought was a silly price - so I bought 2.

 

I've got a 105/2.8 ais micro on the way and just ordered 24/2.8 AIS and a 50/1.8 AI.

 

Oh and picked up a MD12 also... so just a waiting game now (plus trying to sell off my RF gear).

 

So thanks again for all your great advice - can't believe how much info I got offered in such a short time.. amazing.

 

Cheers.

[vic_.]

Dave, Congratulations on your new gear. Now that you're set for a while, keep an eye out for a 20mm f3.5 AIS, which has CRC (Close Range Correction). Look at what Bjorn Rorslett has to say about this lens. It can be had for $200 or thereabouts, and would be a 30mm lens with a digital camera (with the x1.5 factor), a good price/performance for a digital wide. Buying AF wide angles is a more expensive proposition. Regards!

[Michael R Freeman]

"... keep an eye out for a 20mm f3.5 AIS, *which has CRC* (Close Range Correction)." -- Vic.

 

Actually it doesn't, but it still performs extremely well close-up. I own one of these and it is a jewel of a little lens. I can second the recommendation for the 20/3.5.

[vic_.]

Michael, I stand corrected. It's the 20mm f2.8 which has CRC, and not the f3.5. Thanks!