The legendary Nikon FM2

[bogdan_nicolescu]

I've just seen a brand new FM2 Year of the Dragon on line for auction...mmm.... nice... or maybe time is up to take the plunge and buy one of those new marvelous modern cameras as....F6??!:)...decisions decisions..

[constance_cook]

I have what tonight seems ike piles of Nikon cameras. I have a Year of the Dragon (Milly). It is worthwhile just to look at if nothing else. When my last camera goes, it will be my FM3a (although I love my old F5, longtime friend and my F6 (which is just wonderful quality-wise)..

 

Conni

[maxwell_a._ferguson]

I finally made the plunge and got myself a D200 a couple of years ago. Lovely. Does everything. Whistles Dixi. Coffee with one sugar

and the perfect Martini shaken and not sshtirred, It even takes pictures. Being a respected former darkroom jockey, Photoshop guru and

author (my publishers words) I even know how to make the most of the files on my Mac.

 

It's fantastic. With the 18-200 zoom and a 2Gb card it cost very close to my D90x with grip and 35-70 macro zoom (replacing a stolen

FM2) had cost nearly 10 years previously. An absolute bargain. 18 months later there's the D300 and I suspect more in another 6

months.

 

My main problem is that I can't set the aperture, shutter speed and roughly pre-focus - many of the old photojournalists who carried

Leicas had them ready to go while hanging off their shoulder. They'd instinctively stop down walking outside, open up as they entered a

building and so on. Ready to shoot the moment something happened. And they were very quiet.. a good manual SLR pretty close

behind.

 

Now with my "fantastic" DSLR I have to switch it on, depress this button move the wheel at the back, reset that button check it all in the

top LCD screen scroll through the menu click enter, go to ISO setting while ensuring that noise reduction is not engaged while shooting

at 200 ISO and that blah blah etc etc. and how much information can you read in the viewfinder anyway? you get the picture..

 

NO YOU DON'T...!!! You miss it.. and that's my problem.

 

How I wish somebody would come up with a DSLR that had simple BIG dials that said ISO - Shutter Speed - Aperture like an old

FM(E)2.

 

It was simple. My right thumb changed speed. My right index finger pushed the shutter button, which fired the shutter every time without

the introverted feedback loop (I just invented that one) taking control.. My left hand supported the camera altered the aperture and

focused. My hit rate shooting in the dark pit at sweaty rock and roll gigs was pretty good. My exposures really close and as I worked in

major London labs I could push and pull colour and B&W really nicely. It worked really well.

 

I wouldn't go back into the dark again, Photoshop has cured me of that. And I really do like technology. It has much to bring us.

 

A camera needs a decent sensor, a good lens and a decent strap. It takes pictures it doesn't control the Starship Enterprise.

 

A word to all manufacturers of electronic stuff remember the KISS principle. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!!!

 

That works for me..

[steven_parks]

I think that the reader who lamented that the discussion turned into that of a comparison between digital and film is correct...it is not about that. There are cases for both. My son graduated from elementary school and I felt he was ready for a proper camera, bought him an FM10. He is learning a tremendous amount about using light and exposure. I think that there is something to be said for the non-immediacy of film....you need to concentrate, understand and not just click on the shutter a few times.

I have an FM3a and it is an awesome camera. I will eventually get a D80 or D90 as I see a place for that as well.....but it is really sad that getting film is harder and harder. I am running Kodachrome now...have to try it before it too disappears.

[ed_gerken]

I liken my D200 as more like my F3hp with a motor. Both are heavy, metal-bodied cameras. The mass adds stability when shooting

handheld. I think now after 35 years in photography, I'd kinda like a lighter camera. However, if it had camera shake problems, out the door

with it, like my older Olympus 1.4mp.

 

That camera was slow, hard to get in focus and nearly every image needed correcting in the computer. I had to shoot several just to get one

decent shot. It only came along on a couple pro shoots as a curiousity or for trying yet more tests with studio strobe to find the magic spot

where it might work.

 

The reaction time with my D200 is instaneous. I can whip it out and get off a shot quicker than I could with my F3. Just as on the F3, I

preset it to my preferred mode so it's ready as soon as power is applied. I seldom refer to the preview, as much to check framing as

anything.

 

I don't shoot pro much at all these days, though I've still kept all my Nikon F2 bodies, the F3, an Fe2, FG, EM and 11 or so lenses, plus a

full Beseler color/b&w darkroom. I can even print color negs or slides in there. Kinda kept it all in case a legacy client might want film, plus I

do a lot of duping of historic photos, so I hung onto it all. Haven't shot a roll or made a print in 4 years, so I guess that writing's on the wall.

 

The D200 has even replaced my flatbed scanner for the most part. Copying old prints or even entire newspaper pages is easy and the results

are great.

 

I used to be a total manual fanatic, eschewing "automatically wrong" automation of any kind. The F3 taught me that exposure automation

was good for many situations. My real work was usually with flash anyway, but I began to use auto more and more outdoors. In the old days

I always said a person needed to develop and print at least long enough to get a feel for what consistuted a good exposure. Maybe now, all it

would take would be a few fruitless Photoshop sessions to prove the same lessons. Generally, anything I could do in a darkroom I can now

do in the living room at my Mac. Results are comparable if not even better. No dust spots, chemistry drops, messes and expense of short-

lived developers. My biggest problem now is dried-up printer ink, LOL!

 

I bought the D200 to have the capability to mount all my old glass, which includes some lenses that were made in the 60's, like my trusty

micro-Nikkor. Don't hardly even mount 'em, but it's good to be able to if I get the urge someday. Since most of my current work is to sell our

products on the web, the lowest resolution setting works fine.

 

It kinda sounds like I overbought with the D200. I got it in order to be compatible with the shooting requirements of my last big photo client.

One of their sons showed an interest and pretty much stepped in, using the company's Nikon D80. Since buying the D200 I've been hired

there only once, but after over 20 years of shooting for them, I don't mind one bit!

 

I agree that menu-hunting and dial-spinning can be a pain. I don't use that many of the features to be familiar with getting to them quickly.

But I remember I used to practice with my old cameras so I could make any setting quickly and in the dark. Nowadays, I leave the D200 on

program, single shot, auto-focus and don't worry too much about it. The few rejects can be easily reshot. It's not like what I shoot these days

is going to be submitted for publication in a book or national magazine like my older work was.

 

So, yes, I think there could be a limited market for a really basic, yet rugged and capable digital. It would have been more up my alley. What

I'd really like to see is "digital film." All the guts of a digital in the shape of a roll of film, that could be placed into almost any vintage film

camera, transforming it into digital.

 

If that's still a little beyond current tech, maybe it could take the shape of a removeable back, much like the old Polaroid "Speed Magny"

back that fit the Nikon F. That would truly be the best of both worlds!

 

-Ed

[janet cull]

>>Just how many FM2 users are there nowadays? People nowadays want lots of buttons and modes<<

 

I use the FM2 and I don't want buttons and modes. In fact recently I was carrying it around and shooting at a local festival

and several people stopped me to say, "ahhh, a real camera! I had one of those and it was my favorite.".

[vince_ward]

Haven't gone digital yet, though the thought is banging around somewhere in the back of my mind. Still use my FM2 and F3 bodies with a variety of prime lenses. Scan results, clean with photoshop. Job done.

A 12 year old student of mine saw a film case on my table the other day and said 'What's that?' I couldn't help but smile.

 

Vince

[rustys pics]

The FM2 is to cameras what classic rock is to music-timeless!

[bill_husa]

I miss them. The old FM2 with an MD12 motor drive was my favorite camera for many years.

Many of the new digital SLR's are becoming so good so fast that I'm hesitant to buy a high end camera right now because in one years time it

is nearly obsolete.

Nikon seems to be listening to photographers and I think the latest Nikon's are giving Canon a run for their money. The new Nikon D3 has

12.1 mega pixels, 51p AF, 9 FPS, ISO of 6400, dual CFC slots a 3" LCD and Hi Def Video output. That's pretty tough to beat.

[stephen_asprey2]

I get much more pleasure from my FM2n and FE2 shooting TX, than using my D300. The latter system with redundant lenses for the dx sensor is simply too expensive. When FX is down to less than a grand, I might go back. Don't seel your fx compatible primes and manual Ai's.

I'm back on film.

I have a friend at Adorama. He tells me that soon an E+ FM2n will command $500, used. Thats more than it was new. Good FE2s are also walking out the door and prices are going up from less than $200 to about $300. They have truckloads of used digital slrs that are gathering dust and they are about to slash their trade in offers. He thinks that DX slrs Hang in and watch the revolt. Their sales of film are also increasing too. Fuji recently was forced to restart production of Velvia 50 in 35mm. Its now on back order at Ad and B&H.

[Jim_Tardio]

Get a Nikon D60 or a D40, slap a Katzeye screen in it and you'll have the closest thing to it. True, the viewfinder isn't as big or as bright...and you'll need chipped lemses.... but the D60/D40 is actually a bit smaller than the FM2.

<p>

I love my FM3a, but the D60 isn't a bad compromise.

[lonnie_paulson3]

I still use my Nikon F2 and Nikkormat and all manual lenses.

[larry_miller5]

I still love shooting with my F3, FE2 and FM2N and occasionally my Nikkormat FTN. I'll shoot film until it's dead. The resolution is great. And some of the upper end digital cameras can match the resolution WITH the upper end prices! Spending $3-5K+ on a camera holds no attractiveness to me. Lord, that buys a lot film.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<i>Yes, a "Digital" FM2 would still need a battery unlike the mechanical FM2. However just as there are Leica

range finders that are digital, how about a digital SLR with just a shutter, aperture, a metered manual mode and

manual override?</i><br>

<br>

Apurva, you can do that with almost any DSLR. And the days of aperture rings on lenses appear to be numbered

anyway. The digital FM would cost as much as a D300 (if DX) or a D700 (if FX) and would have much less to offer.<br>

<br>

One thing Leica's evolution of the M7 into the M8 has demonstrated is the fact that it is possible to make a

digital rangefinder camera keeping dimensions and weight in check. However, even Leica wasn't able/willing to

put a full frame sensor into the M8/M8.2 and the M8 commands a hefty $1200 over the not exactly moderately priced

M7 - and it is $1900 for the M8.2. Apparently, even Leica could no longer ignore the calls for automatic

programs in their cameras - and hence we have aperture priority in the M7 and M8/M8.2.<br>

<br>

I recently shot with a Leica M6 for the first time - and felt like I had moved 25 years into the past (I started

photography in 1979 with a Nikon FM). Having to set aperture and shutter speed manually, trying to eyeball the

two little triangular LEDs just distracted me from focusing on the main thing in photography - getting the

picture. For composing a shot, to me, the rangefinder is far inferior to any SLR viewfinder - even if it is the

dinky dark one of a Nikon D70.<br>

<br>

Until 2004, when I purchased my first DSLR, I had stuck it out with manual focus lenses only, but had upgraded

long before from the manual cameras to the ones with automatic - F3, FA, F4 - with them, exposure became easier

to deal with.<br>

<br>

With the DSLR I now had to deal with buttons and command dials instead of the good old dials of the past - and

guess what, I learned and adjusted and now I can play those as fast as I did the mechanical dials before. I also

had to deal with AF - such horror! Learned quickly there too and now like AF as much as I did MF before.<br>

<br>

Ergonomically, I much prefer a D200 over any of the older film cameras. I don't have larger hands, but on all my

film cameras FM/FM2, FA, F3 I had to add the motor drive to be able to hold them comfortably. The F4 was the

exception, though I switched between MB20/MB21 depending on whether I used small or large lenses. Even on a

D200, I prefer to attach the MB-D200 to increase the size and the heft - which on the D300 is almost too much.<br>

<br>

As to learning photography with film rather than digital - I am fully with Shun on that one. What can possibly

be better than instant feedback on the LCD display and an RGB histogram to look at? Shooting negative film? If

not processed yourself, the lab will correct even the grossest exposure mistakes anyway. <br>

[anggara_yonathan]

<p>Bringing up the old post, I think it is becoming more possible for Nikon to produce FM2D or FM3D.<br>

Lot of D700 users still using their AI-S lens with this body. This is like paying $2,700 and neglect the superior AF capability. Why would people do that? Cause D700 so far is the cheapest FX and they don't care for advance features on the three holly Nikon zooms. These three zooms by the way will cost more than $5,000. Also they are heavy so most hikers/landscapists choose primes instead.<br>

In my opinion Nikon hasn't fill the niche of slow shooter/landscapist like Canon does with 5D mark II. This can be filled with FM2D. And I doubt FM2D going to cost more than D700 considering some features can be eliminated:</p>

<ul>

<li>AF motor</li>

<li>AF sensors, focus tracking</li>

<li>big LCD</li>

<li>internal flash</li>

<li>i-TTL</li>

<li>8fps</li>

</ul>

<p>Some stamp dies may be reusable. Sony can produce 20+ mpix dslr under $3K so FM2/FM3D can follow either Sony's way or using D700 12mpix sensor. Introducing this body will not reduce D3/D700/D300 market as they have quite different interest. Most likely it will create new market within loyal old manual Nikkor users. Of course if needed then reproducing AI-S Nikkor won't be as expensive as designing new AF lens.<br>

Just add a small software for tethered shooting, this will woo ground glass users and will prove very useful for landscapist. Independent accessory maker will be happy to produce portable 13 inch LCD for the need.</p>