F3 vs Fm3a

[Jim_Tardio]

Very valid point, Douglas.

<p>

My reason for writing what I did was that some folks are under the impression that having aperture priority available in the FM3a somehow reduces it in stature compared to the FM2.

<p>

Heck, they're all nice bodies.

[cd thacker]

Gary - Regarding AE, I should have said <I>pro</I> SLR. I don't know what the evidence is, anecdotal or otherwise, for the "well-deserved reputation for electronic failure" that you contend exists. But it seems obvious to me that the F3 would not have been the immense success that it was (and is), if a "large stock of examples" (older or otherwise) was known for failure. Given the length of time during which these bodies were produced, I'd be surprized to hear that the F3 wasn't the largest selling of all its F series bodies. With one, maybe two, exceptions, I've only read how hardy and durable these cameras are. (It would be interesting to see some actual figures - especially MTBF (mean time between failures) stats - but I doubt we will.)<P>

 

Douglas - as someone who has used, together, the FM2N and FE2, I can tell you that it is nice - but not nearly so nice as would be two FM3A's. Or two F3's. Right now I own, in addition to the F3HP, an FM2N and Nikkormat EL(W) - and while I do appreciate having these bodies around, I'd much prefer it if they were all the same.

[douglas_green]

Well, I agree about having the same bodies makes working easier. The fact is, I have most of the Nikon MF bodies, and I tend to work with 2 of the same when I can, but I honestly find the FE, FM, FE-2, and FM2n so similar that I can go between them easily. I've not actually used an FM3a, just because I don't see what it gets me vs. the bodies I already have. Truth to tell, I have used the FE, FM, FE-2 and FM2n bodies the least of all that I own. Why, because they are, what I'd call "Tweeners" i.e. they are not optimal for anything I do. They are pretty good for everything, but not the best Nikons for anything.

 

If I was forced to standardize on one Nikon Body, it very well might be the FE-2 or FM3a, but since I have Motorized F3s, and very convenient light FGs, I don't use the "Tweeners" for much of anything because one of the others is always slightly better for whatever job I have at hand (Except for flash, where the FE-2 is superior, but I use Olympuses for most of my 35mm Flash work, so the "Tweeners" are still mostly un-used in my world).

[michael_devoue]

For my use:

<p>

1)I always print full frame, so 100% accuracy is a must.

Optical arrangement of finder/screen much improved over fe/fm variations. Clearly (NPI) visible from center to edge. Call it a better viewing system.

<p>

2)What other camera(+drive) gives you the option of on-demand manual or motorized advance as well as power or manual advance? Run off A/C? Shoot almost 3 rolls a week for a year and only have to change batteries once? Get up to 5.5fps with the mirror returning, 6fps with the mirror up? Granted, with Ni-Cads, but their low-temp performance(I'm alaskan) is appreciated anyway. Far superior drive.

<p>

3)Reliability. F3's went into space for a good reason. Early examples may have had problems, but those represent a very small percentage of total procuced, and probably trade hands often. I found a later (187xxxx) body and experienced zero glitches. Paid $453 for it. $248 for an absolutely mint drive. New FM3a (b+h)= $609 (yes, black).

<p>

4)Robustness: Seeing what went through a repair facility, a much higher percentage of fe/fm variants vs. F3's had flange focus problems. fe/fm variants are simply lighter-duty machines.

<p>

The FM3a is a nice camera, but i find I preferred the FM2n to it- I happen to like the +,0,- indications and would prefer a later production model (s/n 8XXXXXX+). Early (honeycomb titanium shutter) Fm2's had shutter problems that got debugged, and I'll wait until the FM3a has spent a little time on the market to give it any deserved credit.