D90 a modern day FM2?

[Apurva Madia]

<p>The legendary Nikon FM2 is a formidable camera, not easy to be erased from the memory of the photography community. The question: which is the current camera that one can associate with the FM2 identity is for me has been intriguing as well as interesting.<br>

As modern day camera technology goes, one thing is certain, that no mechanical mainstream camera is ever going to be produced.("Mainstream" is the key word here.) Given that I feel Nikon D90 comes closest to the concept of FM2.<br>

D90 is moderately priced, moderate on size, has high end features which appeal to the pros as well as serious amateur, well built, has CMOS sensor and gives excellent image quality. What FM2 was Vis-a-vis an F3, D90 is vis-a-vis the D3.<br>

Any views on this?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Not that I see much point in this exercise - I see no parallels between the D90 and the FM2 (I owned two and one FM). The FM2 trumped the F3 on several fronts; except for the video gimmick, the D90 has nothing at all on the D3. The FM2 was a distinguished model in its own right, the D90 is the D300 sensor in a D80 body. The FM2 had character - the D90 is just another plastic body...</p>

[Albins images]

<p>"Not that I see much point in this exercise " [<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=323291">Dieter Schaefer</a>].. But still, I feel tempted too to post here.. FM2 allowed all kinds of lenses and mechanical accessories (extension rings, to name an important one) and was focused on the simple basics of photography. Being: making an image with light, a light receptor (film), (the laws of) optics, a shutter and an aperture.</p>

<p>The D90 much distracts from those basics by its intended purpose. And it only accepts dedicated AF lenses and accessories (..no simple K-rings, reversal rings etc.), unless you accept it being degraded to an over-featured black box with all those extra features being non functional (an exposure meter, for example..).</p>

<p>No, the comparison is flawed.</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>Then would a D300 be it?</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Apurva, I don't have a FM2, but I do have a FM3. I do not think it can ever be replicated in the digital age by another camera. It is the camera taken as a whole that makes it great. Full batteryless operation, smooth shutter action, tough build, large viewfinder and metering with a match-needle that allows a scene to be evaluated in a simple sweeping motion.</p>

<p>I want digital images to share and print, so I use my FM3 like a digital camera. Use develop and scan service only (1 hour service), use the camera freely as I can afford and have fun with it. As it has produced so many 'digital' images for me, I think of it almost as the best of both worlds.</p>

<p> </p>

[james_symington1]

<p>I don't think so. The closest thing in terms of pared down to basics functionality that the FM2 provided is, in my opinion, a Leica M8 and even then that is stretching credibility. Possibly one of the small Olympus DSLRs. Essentially the modern day FM2 doesn't exist yet although I would much like to see one. Thom Hogan describes exactly his idea of such a camera here:<br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/index.htm">http://www.bythom.com/index.htm</a><br>

I would buy one in an instant if it ever came to be.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Apurva - I forgot to add a 'digital FM3 photo' :-)</p><div></div>

[tri-x1]

<p>No digital camera can be a "camera for the ages" like the FM3 or the F3HP. The DSLRS come and go too fast and have built-in obsolence.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I do not see any similarities in the D90 and FM2 at all with the exception that they both say Nikon. The FM2 I believe was marketed as a semi professional model. I think that the D300 might be a better comparison as it fill's the semi professional spot in the current line up. But again the camera's are really only comparable in that they both say Nikon. I guess it's an apple and oranges type comparison. I think the Leica camera's are the last or one of the last of the metal bodied camera's as mentioned above. If you compared the Leica MP (not even an slr) you would have similar functions, metal body and a camera built for longevity. Not to mention they both shoot film. But at any rate the FM2 still is clicking away out there. </p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Makes me philosophical!! Can you believe my dad had an FM2 for 25 years!! I bought an FM2 in 1985 which I still have and works like new!!! Just imagine the engineering and mterial sicince aspect of it. It was a beauty to open an FM2 to see the inside. Think of the range of temperature and humidity it can function normally.Quality of pics? Dont even go there.......Metering? Nothing can replace a human brain. All that was needed was center weighted.<br>

Relative to that....D60s, 80, 90, 200, 300 or even 700s are all just use and throw. Now it all is measured in terms of shutter actuations, we shoot a 100 to get 10% right. May be it seems a bit extreme, but the magic word is 'relative to that'<br>

Yea....we got a few more conveniences, but many crippled man's thinking and understanding.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>To me, for a DSLR to give at least part of the feel of the FM/FM2/FM3A back, it would need to have the following: metal body not larger than the current D300, full frame (FX), no AF, the ability to meter with AI/AI-S lenses, a viewfinder optimized for manual focusing, full i-TTL compatibility, build-in flash is OK, no JPEG option (RAW only), A mode only (not even that is necessary) - and all this for a price below $1500. I'd pack a 20, 28, 50, 105, and 180 MF lens with it and be a happy camper...</p>

[jimcee]

<p>Well, Joe Farace in Shutterbug magazine compares the Nikon D90 to the Nikon N90s. I own a N90s, and I think this comparison is more valid. <br>

Like the N90s/F90x, the D90 is something of a techno-camera, especially since it is the first (obviously not the last) Nikon dSLR to feature a video capability. Similarly to the N90s/F90x, the D90 is distained by Nikon as not quite a professional camera, although it has many abilities that certainly would provide for its use as a professional tool.<br>

Since the N90s/F90x, however, Nikon has been richly successful in promoting the concept that a "true" professional camera must have an alloy metal chassis (something the N90s/F90x did not have). This did not prevent many professional photographers from using the N90s/F90x (it was used by, amongst others, Galen Rowell and John Shaw).<br>

Unfortunately, any comparison of the current range of Nikon dSLR's to former classic models, including the FM2 and the F3, must account for the planned obsolesence that is mentioned by other posters. I have very little confidence that the D90, D300 or D700 cameras will find a space in many photographer's camera bags 25 years in the future (or even 10!).</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>My impression of the D90 is that in terms of market impact it's the equivalent to the Canon AE-1. Those of you who are old enough to remember when that camera was introduced will recall how Canon cranked up the incredible hype machine, with the ads featuring tennis pro John Newcombe, that made the AE-1 *the* #1 cool camera for shutterbugs to own. The impact was incredible and to this day the AE-1 is among the most ubiquitous around because it was both easy to use and had enough features for the serious photographer and even a pro as a backup. (And Canon continued that hype with the Rebel series with the next generation of then-hip tennis pros.)</p>

<p>Nikon never bothered to hype any of their comparable models as effectively as Canon, but the closest models to the D90 would probably be the prosumer F-series with autoexposure: the FE's and FG's.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed that Nikon still hasn't amped up the hype machine to overdrive for the D90 and upcoming D5000. These are by far their most marketable models that could carve out a huge and lasting niche in market share. These might not be models that self-important oh-so-serious photographers would love, but these two models have the potential to sway a lot of buyers' decisions if hyped shamelessly. Right now there are a lot of P&S digicam users sitting on the fence, undecided about whether to go with Nikon's or Canon's comparable dSLRs with the built-in video and other hybrid P&S/camcorder/dSLR type features. It takes effective marketing as much as features and engineering to knock people off the fence. Nikon really needs to step up and swat those undecided buyers with absolutely shameless hype.</p>

<p>But what makes most of these comparisons irrelevant isn't the features or construction quality, but size and weight. If the D90 was the same size and weight as an unadorned FM-series, sure, then we'd have a 1:1 comparison. But there was a paradigm shift in ergonomics and it's unlikely Nikon or Canon would return to the slab-sided design simply to please a handful of aesthetes. I can see Pentax taking a risk on a minimalist design, but it's risky. Such a body would need the most efficient, smallest battery around, otherwise it'll poop out too quickly with tiny batteries. And users would have to be satisfied with much slower framerates, probably only 1-2 fps, to accommodate the miniaturization necessary to eliminate the palm swell handgrip where a lot of meat is stuffed in our dSLRs.</p>

<p>Due to the rapid pace of new model introduction the D90 won't approach the F-series in terms of longevity. But Nikon should establish a solid marque for product identification and build on it for as long as possible. For example, while uninspired, a D90a or D91, rather than a complete model redesignation, to maintain a sense of continuity. I'm not crazy about the "X" suffix because it doesn't leave room to grow (since a "Y" and "Z" don't leave much room before having to backtrack to the beginning of the alphabet or change the name entirely).</p>

[richard_cochran]

<p>One beautiful thing the FM2 has which I think no future digital will have is simplicity of controls. You never have to reset an FM2. Each function has physical control assigned to it. If you want to know how something is set, you just look at the control that sets it. If you want to change the setting, you move that control. No drilling down through menus to find a custom function. No need to verify the setting by looking at a display. Because there are so few things to set, you never forget and accidently leave a setting wrong. This is an important design concept that has been totally lost forever in the DSLR world, I'm afraid. And it's the main appeal of the FM series, to me (that and nostalgia -- my own FM is 29 years old this month and still going strong).</p>

<p>I don't care so much about whether the body is slab sided or curvy. Even plastic vs metal isn't so vitally important to me. If they made a digital camera with controls that worked like those of an FM or F3, I'd be buying it.</p>

<p>The cheaper simpler digital cameras actually are a bit worse in this regard than the top of the line models. At least with my D200 I've got separate controls for aperture and shutter speed when in manual mode (even though those same controls are overloaded and do other things in different modes). And of course the D200 works well with those AI lenses, so I can get good control of focus and aperture by using an old lens.</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>I entirely agree that digital electronic cameras have nothing in common with FM2. I also acknowledge that in this age the FM2 is never going to be reproduced. However my reasons for comparing D90 with FM2 are several. A D300 or D3 picture quality in a compact packaging, enough high end features to lure the serious artist.<br>

In the earstwhile film days camera obsolesence had only one dimension: Mechanical/electric technology. The image qaulity aspect was left to the film manufacturers.<br>

Now the sensor development and processing engine involves high end electronic inputs from camera manufacturers and image quality has exclusive dependence on the camera rather than film. Hence the planned obsolescence.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>FM2 could meter with manual ais lenses, D90 no compatible with them. Its a shame so many classic Nikon lenses left out in the cold at this price point it should be grandfathered in already in new designs for this much money. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It isn't "planned obsolescence." The inevitable improvements in response to market demands will quickly render older dSLRs obsolete for some purposes. But there's no plan to deliberately force consumers to continually buy new. Manufacturers are simply responding to a market that is more demanding, fickle and arguably better informed than at any time in the history of photography. With each new dSLR the honeymoon period becomes shorter and more tumultuous. Before the D700 had even cooled off there were already complaints from people who didn't even own one that it wasn't enough.</p>

<p>You may think the image quality from the D90, D300, D700 or D3 is good enough now. But good enough will never been good enough for a small but noisy demographic who want a miniature format camera paradigm to be all things to all photographers and replace not only medium format but also large format.</p>

<p>The market has changed completely and there's no going back. Nikon could slow down to avoid giving the impression of "planned obsolescence" and run the risk of becoming the next Leica, Contax or Alpa. I don't think any of us want that. So don't look for the digital equivalent to the FM2 or any older model. It won't be coming because there will never be a large enough market to make it economically feasible.</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>I think a modern day FM2 is ... the FM2.<br>

I own two. I use both. I own a D300. Nothing is alike or comparable IMO. I had a D40 before, same thing.<br>

If you want a basic fully manual camera that's solid and incredibly easy to use which produces a digital output, invest in a scanner or get your film developed to CD. Go forth and shoot your FM2 all you like. It's still does what it's always done.<br>

Just my $0.02 :)</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>"If you want a basic fully manual camera that's solid and incredibly easy to use which produces a digital output, invest in a scanner............."</p>

<p>I'm going to Costa Rica in a few weeks, and have been pestering all kinds of forums about what to take, going back and forth on a variety of digital cameras collecting in my closet, then I saw this post. OK, digital camera will be an Olympus E420 with a fast zoom lens (small, about the size of an FM2n) and the other will be my FE2 plus 24 mm, 50 mm, and 200 mm primes. FE2 isn't FM2n but it very easily utilizes all manual control. Lots of Astia and Velvia slide film still in the fridge<br /> and I still have a Coolscan 4000.</p>

<p> </p>

[indraneel]

<p>a d200, maybe ?</p>

[rustys pics]

<blockquote>

<p>It isn't "planned obsolescence." The inevitable improvements in response to market demands will quickly render older dSLRs obsolete for some purposes. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex I must respectfully disagree. Tonight I was in the middle of an important Photo shoot when my D70 stopped working and gave the cryptic "CHA" error. Cursing, I shut down the camera, removed the media card and prayed the damned thing would work again as the two models looked at me quizzically. My D70 is 5 years old, has maybe 10.000 shutter actuations at most and has been babied compared to my Beat up FM2. At that moment I swore never to buy another junky DSLR from ANY company. I'll be shooting my FM2 when the D70 dies, which may be soon. SO the short answer is we'll know the "Digital FM2 in 20 years if it' s still working. Until then I remain skeptical</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Russ, that's not really a valid comparison. You're not gonna like my opinion, but here goes:</p>

<p>The D70 wasn't anything close to an FM2. It was the digital equivalent to the EM, or FG at best, and maybe only to the Cosina-made FM-10 (and I've written many times before that I have never seen a fully functional EM, despite having handled a couple dozen of 'em over the years). It was Nikon's entry level dSLR, a first for them in that niche, since the D100 wasn't priced or hyped nearly as effectively as the D70. And it was only a third generation Nikon dSLR. The first being those nearly $10,000 doodads cobbled together from film SLRs and Borg Collective backs; the second being the D1. Not counting the obscure E-series dSLRs which, apparently, nobody has ever actually seen or handled, or at least won't admit to it.</p>

<p>Photographers who risked getting in early paid a lot of money for not very much camera. That any of 'em has lasted this long is a wonder. My 7-year-old Olympus C-3040Z P&S digicam has begun pooping out this year and probably has far fewer than 10k cycles. But it did the job for me for those years. Do I regret paying for it what could later have bought a D50 or, with another hundred bucks or so pitched in, a D90? Nope. Because I chose not to wait for the market to mature to that point.</p>

<p>So our "ancient" digicams pooping out after a few years isn't planned obsolescence. We took risks by getting into the second or third generation of a technology that we knew then wasn't even equal to 35mm film (probably not even equal to AP-S film).</p>

<p>It's tough to adapt to the paradigm shift, but digital has completely changed photography. Thinking in terms of how a digital camera compares with a film camera, or a sensor/processor to film, will hold you back. We'll have to face the reality that digital cameras are more like computers than anything else, and will depreciate and become obsolete fairly rapidly. And there are virtually no valuable, collectible old computers. In 1990 I tried to persuade the head of our graphics department to buy the then-new $10,000 Mac IIfx. He declined, probably wisely, and switched the entire department over to PCs. In 2000, I finally got my Mac IIfx, the once proud king of computers, for five bucks at a thrift shop. Yeh, it would still work, it would still do the same stuff it could do 10 years earlier. But what a difference a decade made. When the Mac IIfx was new a tiny lo-rez GIF was considered nifty. By 2000 I was making 11 MB TIFFs from my film scans, and even that was considered marginal by professional standards.</p>

<p>You're not buying a camera as an investment or keepsake. You're buying an electronic instrument that will serve here and now to perform one very simple function: make photographs. Only you can decide whether those photographs are worth the risk of spending a lot of hard earned cash on an instrument that will be quickly surpassed.</p>

<p>Hey, the transition hasn't been easy for me either. I'm a lifelong, diehard film buff. But I'm first and foremost a photographer. I'm more interested in the end result than in the tool that I used to produce the images. Sure, I want my tools to last as long as possible. I can't afford to replace my dSLR now. But I knew when I bought it what the limitations would be. And if the dSLR dies and I can't get film, I'll dig out my old recipe books to cook up homebrewed emulsions for coating paper and still figure out some way to make photographs.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Having owned F3, F4, FM2n, FE2 and N90....The D90 is closest to the N90. One can't compare todays consumer plastic cameras with ones made with titanium and magnesium etc as with the FM/FE. In digital the closest would be the D300/700. In the film days the pros carried the F4/5/6 and had an FM2n as a backup. I still use all mine and every time I pick of the FE2 in particular, it just highlights the lack of progress we have made in ease of use....Backwards!</p>

[aruns]

<p>I don't have much photographic experience as some of the others on this forum (I have had a D70 for about 4.5 yrs, have more than 40k shutter activations, suffered enough NAS to collect 10 different lenses (mostly AI), use a FM2 with b/w or slide film, these days use a sb800 and a sb600 with light modifiers to explore indoor portrait photography) but I agree with what Lex said above - when I got my D70, it was one of the best rated dslr cameras around for the price point I was willing to pay. (Very soon after I bought my D70, the D200 was announced at almost double the price of D70, with much better body, weather sealing, speed, etc. Still it was not in the 'the price point I was willing to pay'). Now my D70 is beat up - I get the irritating CHR errors very frequently. I mostly shoot landscapes in the golden hours, and most of the time I get back home, I curse the D70's misleading and primitive LCD display for blown out highlights. Not to mention the not so useful iso performance beyond 640. But, the D70 was once a great camera (4 yrs before!) and I got great pics out of it compared to the Pentax Optio S P&S... It is just that technology moves so quickly and we have several generations worth of improvement in these 4 years in digital photography, that D70 looks, feels and produces images that are primitive. But it is not obsolescence really - I still see tons of D1 and D2 pics on the forums taken these days (i.e., to compare against D300 / D700 pics) that are virtually indistinguishable even today.. and many can be had for just a few 100$ today.. If one thinks these cameras existed even before my D70 was produced, it becomes clear that obsolescence is not an issue here - What is happening here is, the D70 was built for a certain amount of usage and we should be happy that it has lived this far. (I am sure the D2? from the same era would outlast the D70 in terms of performance, longevity, etc. - but it was expensive as hell in 2005 for an amateur). But, as it can be clearly seen that a D90 can outperform a D200 these days, one can easily attribute the progress to technological advance + trickle-down, as against planned obsolescence.<br>

Talking about FM2, I love this body, even with a bunch of lenses it is a light combo on hiking trips. I usually carry a 20mm f/2.8 ais, 24mm f/2.8 ais, 28-70 AFD plastic lens, a 135 f/2.8 ais and sometimes i throw in my 105mm f/4 micro ais too. But I think there is currently no digital replacement for the fm2 (yet). Most of the professional bodies from nikon today weigh more than the fm2. (comparing apples to apples, the FX bodies are much heavier than a fm2 for hiking). And, I don't understand why people compare a FM2 without electrical power but needing film, with a digital camera, which by definition needs power but doesn't need film replacements or developing... (to elaborate, why doesn't anyone compare the fact that, with a 8G card one can take 100's of images on a DSLR, and the 8G CF card weighs next to nothing, whereas a FM2 runs out of media after 36 or 24 shots.. and few multiples of 36 or 24 can take more space if not weight? or the instant gratification associated with digital exposures? or the cheaper cost of processing?.. I think it is silly to compare a FM2 directly with a digital body in terms of specs (as against the usage or utility), but hey, it is just my 2c..).<br>

So, now that we have the power vs. mechanical part out of our way (hopefully), I find a D40 or D60 comes as close to a FM2 as we can get as of date in terms of size and weight.. and because I don't use much of autofocus on fm2 anyways ... I wouldn't mind using a D60 or D40 with AI lenses in full manual mode to get what I want. However, there's no MLU, there's no killer performance in high-iso dept, etc. so I guess we still have to wait for the japanese manufacturers to do their miniaturization magic, and give us a fully weather sealed D700 in d40 size.<br /> cheers. -A.</p>