FE2 or FM3a

[jamiew]

I am in the market for a Nikon SLR and am trying to identify the

differences between these two cameras. Basically the only

differences I have noticed are:

 

- FE2 shutter goes to 8 sec in manual / FM3a only goes to 1 sec

- FM3a uses mechanical shutter in manual mode and FE2 is all electric

- FM3a has DX ISO option

 

What I am wondering is which is the better camera. I am leaning to

the FM3a because I like having a fully manual backup. The only thing

I am not sure of is quality, and which is actually the better

camera. Any comments/suggestions?

[leslie_cheung]

jamie---

 

i would get a fm2 and a fe2 instead of the fm3a...

and if you dig carefully enough you could sqeeze in a

motor drive in there all for a brand new fm3a.

$230 for fm2

$230 for fe2

$100 for md-11

acourse they would be used

[j m shaw]

I second that , an fm2 is a great camera, I keep mine around as a faithful

backup.

[StefDevos]

I owned a FE (I liked its aperture priority) and FM2 (I liked its "less is more" design).

Recently I tried a FM3a in a shop, with the intention to buy since I THOUGHT it was the ideal combination of both: the ease of an FE(2) and the name/style of an FM(2).

But I didn't.

First of all the FM3a had a very noisy mirror. I started doubting whether its quality is the same as the previous models (me too...). And when I looked through the viewfinder, I got the (subjective) feeling of looking through a wrongly named FE(2).

I'm affraid the 'M3' in FM3a stands for 'Manual', 'Mechanical' and 'Marketing': it is expensive, looks great but sounds cheap...

 

As long as you can live without Aperture priority, I would recommend the FM2.

[Jim_Tardio]

It's a no-brainer...get the FM3a. This is the latest design of the "FM" line of cameras. It has all the best features of each model. It's not of any lesser contruction than the other models. It's not any louder, quieter, etc...if anything the FM2 has a "springier" sound.

<p>

It has a great 1-stop flash reduction button that is perfect for fill-flash.

<p>

I've used them all, and still have one of the first production runs of the original FM. Holding them side by side, they're almost identical, except the FM3a has a brighter viewfinder.

<p>

The only FE2's you're going to be able to purchase are those being sold by folks buying the FM3a.

[jamiew]

Thanks for all the replies. I only will get one camera. It will be a primary while I learn more about photopraphy, and in the future I plan to make it a backup. I am not comparing price, but rather quality of construction and features.

[ShunCheung]

I still own an FE and had an FE2 for many years. Nikon has been making FM/FE series cameras since 1977 and they must have worked out all the problems in the last 25 years. While I don't own an FM3a, I seriously doubt that the FM3a is inferior to the earlier models in terms of build quality, but there may be bad samples. If cost is not a concern, IMO it is a no brainer and I would get the FM3a. Whether you can justify the much higher price compared to a used FE2 can only be determined by the individual purchaser.

 

However, using the DX ISO option on a camera that cannot provide feedback is risky. (Can the FM3a provide any feedback?) Years ago when I used DX on my N8008 (F801), all I needed to do was to press a button and the LCD screen would show the actual ISO selected. The same is true on the F5, F100, N90, etc. However, the F4 doesn't have any LCD panel and therefore cannot provide any feedback unless you put a flash such as the SB-24 on. In one case my F4 selected ISO 4000 for a roll of ISO 100 film. Granted, these are rare errors, but if you cannot verify the ISO automatically selected, I wouldn't use the DX option.

[dan_tong]

- If cost is not the matter in your case, there is no doubt the FM3A wins in every way.

 

- If money is a factor, I would suggest to get an FM2N instead of an FE2 for a fully manual backup as you mentioned that is one of the feature you want.

 

- In term of built quality , the all the FM and FE series have a very much the same built quality.

[larry n.]

None of these cameras is built like a tank. I dropped an FE2 from waist-height onto asphalt, and the repair cost as much as a used FE2 in good condition.

 

If price didn't matter, I would definitely go for a new FM3a.

[david_h._hartman]

A friend who repairs cameras told me to sell my FE2(s) before the price drops (awhile ago) and get the FM3a. I figured I�d have to sell two FE2(s) to get one FM3a. The idea of buying a clean used FE2 and FM2n for the price of an FM3a may well be valid. I don�t have to worry about that because I have FE2(s) and FM2n(s).

 

There haven�t been any rebuilt shutters available for the FE2 for several years. If you ever put your finger through a shutter this could be a consideration :) I do hope the FM3a is well supported. I think anyone who is serious about photography is better off with one of those than one of the new plastic (that what repairmen/women call then) cameras. I also think use FM/FE family camera is much better than a new NXX body (N90(s) excepted).

 

As far as need for a fully manual backup if you are not using the camera in extreme cold a pair of tiny S-76 batteries is nothing to carry. The FM3a I understand was requested by the late Galen Rowell and others for expedition use.

 

Just my 2¢,

[ShunCheung]

I don't know when people started describing the FM/FE series cameras as "built like a tank." When the FM was first introduced back in 1977 along with AI lenses, people were used to the much heavier and bulkier Nikon F, F2 and Nikkormat FTN/2 cameras. (It was the Nikkormats that the FM/FE eventually replaced.) Now those cameras are more like "built like a tank." Back then in 1977, the reviews described that the new FM as somewhat fragile because of the apparently thinner metal shell.

 

As it turns out, my FE from 1978 is still in good, working condition and the FM/FE cameras are durable enough, but they are not as rugged as the F series and the Nikkormats.