The legendary Nikon FM2

[astral]

Just to re-emphasise what two other say: the FM2 (actually all film Nikons) can all be upgraded to digital with the Nikon Coolscan upgrade ...... AC

[holger]

The same question arose to me while taking pictures with my FM2n on different occasions in the last months.

However, this week I spent a few days in Rome, and with too many negs still waiting to be scanned (and no time

left right now) I decided to combine my D200 with my 24mm f/2.8 AI (resulting in something like 36mm on the DX

sensor). Working with manual focus, manual aperture ring instead of the control wheel, the feeling with my D200

was completely different to the usual automatic zoom AF matrix metering mode. As has been said in the first

posts, full mechanical control is not possible with digital output. To me, the manual feeling is mostly about

setting controls manually, no zoom, aperture ring instead of control wheel, and the beefy feeling of AI (-S)

lenses. All of this sounds like FM2n, but I believe you can have all of it on a D200, D300 or D700 as well. I

have been waiting for something like a digital FM2n or S3 too, but I think we should rather be happy that

companies like Zeiss or Voigtlaender at least create new AI-S lenses, adding choices to the used market. Combine

these with Dxxx bodies, and yes it feels good, too. Very good, indeed.

 

Happy shooting,

Holger

[peter_e]

As a geologist I've been using an FM2 until four years ago--a very robust camera that didn't mind dust, saltwater spray, and an occasional bump. Scanning slides is too much work/time, however, and my final products (publications, presentations, lectures) require digital images. I now use a point-and-shoot that has some manual controls (Canon Powershot). Should it break I simply get a new one. There is no cost advantage by having a possibly more robust but significantly more expensive, and heavier, camera (like a Leica or a digital version of an FM2). For more refined landscape and nature photography I use an EOS 5D which I keep more protected from the elements. For outdoor use I wish that Canon would have a line of more compact and lighter manual focus lenses.

[vorlandphotography]

The FM2n is a wonderful camera yet today ... and it works at -30F temperature we sometimes experience in North Dakota. The poor man's Leica, and once many a photojournalist's good right hand. I bought mine and for lenses on eBay a couple of years ago. Shoot a Canon 5D in every day life ... but every now and then I get out the Nikon and shoot some slides.

[hjoseph7]

The poor man's Leica is right. The exposure meter on that camera has a mind of it's own. I once compared the images that I took with the FM2 against a more sophisticated electronic AF camera. Out of 36 exposures with the FM2, 30 of them came out perfectly exposed. This includes highly contrasty scenes I only manged to get 15 perfectly exposed images with my more sophisticated electronic camera.

[b_c12]

I use my FM2n all the time. Just got a shipment of 20 rolls of Tri-X, some HC-110, and Diafine from Freestyle. Shooting and developing B&W is a lot of fun for me. Although I also shoot digital, it is just not the same. That's not a bad thing, it's just different...and I won't ever give up my FM2n, FG, or Rollei TLR.

 

And I agree with the above...when a dSLR purchased today goes to the crusher, and its subsequent several replacements too, the FM2n will still be chuggin'.

[ryanjoseph]

I had an FM2n that my father gave me with some pretty nice glass. I used it concurrently with a EOS digital system for a while, but ended up selling the FM2 and the lenses. It was a nice camera when my dad bought it, but age has not been kind to its design.

 

It lacks automation, and the ergonomics are terrible on it. Modern cameras, although bulkier, are considerably more comfortable to shoot with for extended periods. I remember if I shot for more than a hour with the FM2 I would get terrible cramps in my hands. The meter was pretty reliable, but I still manually overode it alot (just like I do with my 40D). The FM2 might look tough on the outside, but it still fails like all mechanical devices.

 

I just don't see the point of making a digital FM2, its like taking a D700 and lobtimizing it into an inferior camera. The tactile feel of a nice heavy metal camera is comforting psychologically, but "crappily built" plastic is tougher than people give it credit for. My FM2 had its fair share of mechanical failures, and I had to have the meter serviced twice on it in the couple of years I owned it.

[studor13]

How on earth would you be able to fit -L1,-L.67,100,...,25600,51200,... on the ISO dial?

[kam_kozalak]

OK, here is a recipe for the new FE2 or FM2 digital camera. No ISO knob and no advance lever. No top display. An

LCD panel at the back, with histogram. ISO adjustment through the D200-like, top-left button and main wheel (the

button also incorporating quality, timer, mirror-lock-up, etc. a la D200/300). Only aperture priority and manual with

diodes in viewfinder. Limited menu options compared to D200/300. But with d.o.f. preview. Meters with Ai/AiS

lenses. Weigths less than 600 grams. Much smaller than D200/300. FX with 12 or more MP resolution.

[brucecahn]

I used FM2s in my portrait studio in the eighties. I liked the quick flash sync speed. Those shutters did not last all that long under heavy use. I bought one body new for $120., and used it until it destroyed 3 shutters and the spring on the back door hardly opened. Then I sold it to a pawn shop for over $100. The film Nikons had great resale value.

[andrew_fedon]

One of the first points I was grateful for on autofocus lenses, being a wearer of varifocal glasses, was being able to get proper focus, something that is very difficult with manual lenses. Fellow glass weareres will know what I'm talking about. Move your head up or down and the focus changes in the veiwfinder ! Which is the correct one ? Thank goodness for autofocus.

Now to the subject of our trusty FM2 etc, or for that matter, F3 , F4, the same can said for any of them. Personally I still use the F4S, but counting pennies to buy an D700. What good is the best Ferrari, or Lamborginni if petrol is about to be discontinued ? The use of any of these 'built to last forever' manual/film bodies is dependent on messers Kodak and fuji. The sand is running out of the hourglass, film use is a fraction of what it used to be, even if you can get film there's not much choice in type, brand, or ASA rating. Slide films ? , even if you have some, try finding anyone that pocesses it anymore. I hear the once fantastic Kodachrome film (used to love that film and the resulting pictures from it), is only processed now in one place in the world, in Kansas, and production is rumoured to have stopped already. Many retailers, on their own initiative, don't bother with film because it doesn't make buisness sense aymore. We can love these cameras as much as we want, but I'm afraid we are pee'ing into the wind, and a very strong wind at that.

I notice Nikon are featuring the F6 in their brochures. A fantastic camera I'm sure, but who in their right mind is going buy a brand new top-of-the-line film camera, at the price it is going for, at this stage of the game, other than for really sentimental reasons instead of investing in a DSLR ? The F4's etc I see going on e-bay are going for peanuts, dirt cheap, or not selling. I wish someone would give a definate timetable for film withdrawal so that people can plan ahead.

[Apurva Madia]

This discussion is turning out be a digital vs film debate. The very nature of a digital camera is antagonistic to the FM2 concept. And the instant feed back that the digital medium gives is hard to beat by the film medium. This instant feed back is invaluable to the learners like me as well as the professionals who don't have to have their Polaroids any more.

[Apurva Madia]

May be Kodak and Fuji could run 'Film' competitions with high stakes in prizes to keep the film production going!

[max_calabrese]

I was given a mint FM2 when i turned 13. By 18 i had moved on to a F80 and now at 24 i use a D200. About two years ago i got nostalagic and slapped a 50mm on my FM2. Half way though the roll i realized i can work faster with any modern Nikon even with the limitations of manual focus and exposure. The index-thumb action just is faster than trying to spin a speed wheel.

 

I belive there are several wildlife photographers and journalists who use F6s for remote locations. I don't think nikon spent on a fortune on R&D as its just techs and components developed for the D2 series with a film back.

[rustys pics]

There is one huge problem with the "instant feedback" given by a DSLR; I see young photographers learning to chimp at

the LCD rather than think ahead to the next shot. Everyone does it, the allure of that little lighted screen is irresistable.

 

So given that, how can you say using a DSLR is faster? It's just a different way of working. Not knocking digital, just

pointing out some things that digi-zealots rarely consider. I'm happy to use both my FM2 and D70, and may soon add a

D80 to the kit.

[b_c12]

Perhaps the digital FM2 shouldn't have a screen at all. Film cameras don't have screens. You make educated exposures by dialing in a combination of aperture and shutter speed. Only when your RAW photos are downloaded do you see how good your assumptions were. Just like when you pull the negatives out of the wash. That would be a good learner's camera.

[ShunCheung]

Somehow I feel that the instant feedback from digital is THE most important advantage for learning photography. In

the old days, by the time you get your film and prints back, you have long forgotten all the settings you used hours

or perhaps even days ago. It was also very easy to confuse the settings used from one image to another.

 

I bought an FE the very year it came out back in 1978. It was a fine camera for about a decade or so but at least I by

far prefer modern features. I still own it only because it is the first Nikon camera I have ever owned after a Nikkormat

a year earlier.

 

People keep on talking about some "digital version" of the FM/FE. I simply don't see the point at all. If you prefer

manual everything, just switch off the auto stuffs on the D700/D300/D200.

[john_biskupski]

For me, the FM2 represents one of the the best of old film slr's - manual, simple, light, solid, effective. An slr version of a Leica film rf - perfect for its purpose.

 

However, just as I see no point in Leica's M8 apeing the old manual rf body styling, I see no point in a digital FM2 either, as modern digital bodies have such significant ergonomic improvements, and digital improvements which are there for the taking with an electronic sensor (eg histograms, JPEG customizing, etc).

 

I shoot both film and digital. On a trip to Cuba, a photohog's dream, I shot mostly digital SLR (sorry-Canon 5D), but I loved getting out early morning with my FM2 with B&W film, which actually made my most memorable shots of that trip. One does not exclude the other.

[oddsnsods]

Hi ya all,

 

I worked with Fm's and Fm2's for the vast majority of my life, simple and reliable, just a pure pleasure to use them,on many days digital just makes me weap, one person asks how Nikon can redress the balance for Fm2 users, they cant. Maybe those days have died off anyway just as my love affair with Nikon has, and I dislike the canons. So for my work I've gone to the darkside and chosen olympus, e1 and e3' but almost with a guilty pleasure hidden at the bottom of my bag is another classic manual camera, it comes out rarely now but when it does its HP5 does the trick, its called the Olympus Om1, a smaller FM2, and in truth its the results of the proccess that we all miss. So raise a glass to the old days next time your drinking, because unlike any digital i can honestly say the FM2 is a good friend of mine.

I've gotta stop writing before I start crying or something...........

[william_varcas]

I agree, boycott Leica and sign petition to Nikon so they can make cheaper manual digital SLR. I am sick of window shopping for a Leica. What is so special about a stupid camera that cost as much as a used car? I honestly love the compact design of Nikon Manual classics over modern d40 type small but round bulky look. because it is hard for me to draw a Modern body while I can just slip out a Fm2 out of my bag within a milli seconds period, hehe. BOYCOTT LEICA !!!!

[photo5]

Shun, the point of a digital FM2 is size and simplicity. I don't always need all the digital displays, graphs, lights, and wheels to take a good photo. All I really want it a camera with a decent viewfinder and manual controls. I don't even need a large hi-res screen, in fact, I leave the instant review feature off all the time as I do not need instant confirmation of a shot for my photography.

 

The D300 is a huge camera. I would prefer a D300 in a FM2 or F3 body.

 

And I fundamentally disagree that digital is of primary importance to learning photography. I believe it is important to learn on film and learn to make your own prints. This teaches a student how to meter, which is hugely important in digital. If you don't understand the fundementals of metering you won't ever be a good photographer. Developing your own film and making your own black and white prints can teach a photo student things they will never ever learn in the digital world.

[b_c12]

I absolutely agree with Dave Lee. Digital is great, but it is no substitute for learning with film. There is a place for film in today's photography, and in some ways it remains a superior recording medium.

[ShunCheung]

The problem is that some people keep saying that it is important to learn with a film camera, but they cannot explain what the actual advantage is, other than the fact that was what they learned with decades ago.

 

Having instant feedback so that one can easily relate cause and effect is very important to learning, and unfortunately shooting film other than Polaroid divorces cause and effect. That was why in the old days instructors and serious photographers used Polaroid to check thing out. When one learns metering, it is very important to have a spot meter to check out the contrast in different parts of the frame (that is a feature Nikon didn’t introduce until the F4 in 1988), and of course today we use histograms to check for over/under-exposure, blown highlights, etc.

In fact, we should get into the habit to inspect individual R/G/B channels to make sure e.g. the red or blue channel is not blown out.

 

If one prefers the handicap from an FM/FE type camera as I did (although not by choice) some 35 years ago, that is your choice. It certainly wouldn't be my recommendation to any beginner today.

[tri-x1]

The primary advantage of learning with film is that you never have more than 36 exposures immediately available so you might learn to compose more carefully. Basically the same rules apply to digital v. film cameras as applied to computers v. typewriters.

[andrew_fedon]

Shun, I have to agree with Dave Lee and BC, "This teaches a student how to meter, which is hugely important in digital. If you don't understand the fundementals of metering you won't ever be a good photographer"- well said .

The 'polaroid' approach did not teach you 'how', it was simply a 'trial and error' to see if and when it was correct. For film, and I'll go one step further and say, especially for slide film, there was no margin for error, not even half a stop. To get a perfectly exposed set of trannies, you had to understand exposure and how it works perfectly for each and every exposure, time and time again. This took knowledge, and years of photographic experience. No opportunities for tweaking in photoshop to adjust.

Same for Waynes' statement about film "you learn to compose more carefully", because its all TOO easy to snap away on digital and say "I'll crop it later".

You know, I was thinking of that old statement that said "the camera never lies". Can that statement still be upheld today ?