Buying one of these FG, FE2, FM3A

[gnashings]

<p>BeBu, I disagree - with the conclusion, not your reasoning. All the factors you mention are very much true. But, the FG with all of its cost cutting is a very reliable camera, and has proven itself to be so over many long years and much less than gentle use. And it is smaller and lighter. And it is still even more inexpensive. I would say (and believe me this is not spoken from a place affluence lol) if anything the prices make it so there is no reason not to buy BOTH and see which one gets more use. I am almost embarrassed to say, but in my case and through no conscious design or intent, it has been... the lowly FG. As much as I love my FM and have nothing but stellar things to say about it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Even though it costs more, if one can afford it, my choice would be the FM3A. Its the newest of the cams but it really is a FE2 combined with a FMn2. Great electronic lens and meter system, with all mechanical speed back-up if your batteries fail. Also, the pancake 45 lens that was designed for that camera is another choice, but the 50 is great too. It works great with pretty much all Nikon MF lenses of AI and later. You can find AIS lenses at really good prices too and they are still excellent lenses for those cameras. I myself have an FE2 and its a good solid camera, but its pretty loud and I don't use it much, but the match meter is really cool.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Can't argue with Barry's logic. If price is no object, the FM3a is really the pinnacle of its lineage. But I would say it is usually not mentioned in the same conversation as it usually costs more by a factor of several times. Still a bargain given what you would pay for a Canikon Rebel 5xxx... whatever its called this week;)</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>I carried an FG around in my daily backpack for a couple of years and it started to fall apart! It's just not durable. Sure, they are cheap to replace but a camera that costs 2X or 3X as much will last far longer and will be more reliable. My FE went on hundreds of miles of backpacking and hiking trips and never failed me except through user error. The FE2 will probably be more reliable than an FE at this point due to not being as old.</p>

 

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Two quick points to the OP.<br>

1. Your misconception about the price of teh FM3A shows you have not done your homework. To avoid paying too much, look at prices of <em>completed</em> auctions (checkbox on the right of the screen). And be patient. <br>

2. The FM3A is a "better" camera than an FG, FE, or FM2. But costs, say 5x the price. Will you make 5x better pictures with the FM3A? Or get 5x more keepers? Or, if you have the cash anyway, wouldn't it be better spent on extra/better lenses? </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I much rather use the original FM than the FG. If I have both I would never touch the FG. My F5 was programmed via photo secretary software to allow only A and M mode. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>FG durability? This is a great small camera. No, it's not as strong as an FM, FE, or F body. The biggest issue I've seen in considerable use is electronics rot, not physical breakage.</p>

<p>My answer: If you like the FG, buy two, they are so cheap today.</p>

<p>For an inexpensive film camera that's small and light-weight, the FG is great. A little bigger, heavier, more expensive, and more robust is the FM/FE series. All are good.</p>