Want a film camera - FE2 or FM2n?

[Mary Doo]

Understand. I was making that statement in jest only. Obviously the subject is not about photography (as in making pictures purely for the image quality) anymore. Just like people playing 78-rpm records is not for the pure enjoyment of music any more. They enjoy it even when the sound effect is squeaky torturous. Edited March 20, 2020 by Mary Doo

[glen_h]

Understand. I was making that statement in jest only. Obviously the subject is not about photography (as in taking pictures purely for the sake of the image quality) anymore. Just like people playing 78-rpm records is not for the pure enjoyment of music any more. They enjoy it even when the sound effect is squeaky torturous.

 

When I bought my FM 40 years ago, not long after the FE came out, it was partly because I liked

the manual metering of the FM. You have to think, just a little, about the exposure and have time

to think about doing it differently. (Before that, I had a Canon rangefinder with external meter.)

 

I believe that the F100 has a manual exposure (match meter) mode, and also manual focus, so the only

automatic mode that you can't turn off is winding. Though as I understand it, the focus screen isn't so

good for manual focus lenses as some other cameras.

 

I got a used N80 (church auction) not long after my first DSLR, and found it interesting that the controls

work similarly, and not much like the FM. I had the D70s and N80 on some vacation trips together.

 

On the other hand, with DSLRs I most often use P mode, though sometimes one of the other

modes, and also most often with autofocus on.

 

It seems to me that any of the Nikon film cameras that use AI lenses will probably do what

the OP needs doing. The FT3 and EL2 are the earlier of the AI cameras, and not all that

hard to find for reasonable prices. It looks like the FM3a tends to be overpriced, though

the FM2 and FE2 only slightly overpriced.

 

Any of these cameras can die at anytime, with the price to repair more

than the price for another one, except possibly the overpriced FM3a.

[Albins images]

Understand. I was making that statement in jest only. Obviously the subject is not about photography (as in making pictures purely for the image quality) anymore. Just like people playing 78-rpm records is not for the pure enjoyment of music any more. They enjoy it even when the sound effect is squeaky torturous.

Haha! I'll limit myself to 33-rpm.. that has been a crazy ride already so far..

I will not rule out a return to film photography .. but if you ask me: not now.

Daguerrotypes, perhaps?

[Mary Doo]

Haha! I'll limit myself to 33-rpm.. that has been a crazy ride already so far..

I will not rule out a return to film photography .. but if you ask me: not now.

Daguerrotypes, perhaps?

These days, I just say "Alexa, play my favorite music" (or "play Jazz music", or anything from any musician or singer). Alexa would instantly stream the music from Amazon's vast music library to my Sonos One speakers. If I don't particularly like a certain selection, I just need to say "Alexa, next"...

 

For photography, one just needs to pick up a mirrorless camera to instantly have a what-you-see-is-what you-get image.

 

Life is good, why complicate it? ;)

Edited March 21, 2020 by Mary Doo

[conrad_hoffman]

If you're looking for a mindful retro experience, why bother with the pitiful and inadequate 35mm format? Go 4x5 or 8x10!

[Mary Doo]

Haha! I'll limit myself to 33-rpm.. that has been a crazy ride already so far..

I used 78-rpm as an extreme example only to illustrate a point. Seriously, one time a party host was showing off his 78 collection and kept playing it until someone yelled "Can you please stop the torture"? LOL.

 

Re 33-rpm, I do have a collection and a turntable - that would probably unfortunately stay in the basement forever at this rate, along with projectors, copy table and some old camera gear. I strolled into a music store the other day and the owner told me that 33-rpm is coming back and they were selling well. But strangely, no one buys much of any CD from his store. Go figure.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Mary Doo

[rodeo_joe1]

Many "newbie" film users fall into this camp: they're sick to death of DSLR.....

 

I'm reminded of Doctor Samuel Johnson's famous quote - "When a man is tired of London; he is tired of life." And while the concrete canyoned London of today is obviously a completely different place from that of Dr. Johnson's time, the epithet still stands as a suitable metaphor.

 

Why would anyone who's genuinely interested in capturing or creating images ever get sick of the near perfect representations possible from a DSLR or its mirrorless counterpart? Unless they were actually jaded with, or fundamentally disinterested in, the whole image-making process, or unduly swayed by peer-pressure into adopting the latest 'cool' trend. Even if it gave inferior technical quality.

 

If jaded with any pursuit, there are better ways to rekindle an interest than changing one item of equipment for another. The answer comes from within and from seeking visual inspiration, not by adding a novel toy to the gadget bag.

 

Transport similes seem to be popular here. So: Changing one's car does not make one a better driver.

[ben_hutcherson]

Transport similes seem to be popular here. So: Changing one's car does not make one a better driver.

 

To counter that point, my MG(that's older than my favorite F2) which boasts such luxuries as roll up windows, a pre-engaged starter, and synchronization on all 4 gears makes me FEEL a lot more in touch with everything than my Lincoln that has more features than I care to count.

 

The film analogy here would be that even if ultimately I get inferior results(take longer to get to my destination and arrive more tired) I enjoy the process of getting there(shooting slides, printing B&W in the dark room). Also, even if the result is inferior, there's still a certain satisfaction to looking at a slide on a lightbox, seeing a print I've slaved over getting just right/to my taste, and arriving smelling like exhaust with my hair messed up.

[Vincent Peri]

If you're looking for a mindful retro experience, why bother with the pitiful and inadequate 35mm format? Go 4x5 or 8x10!

 

There's nothing pitiful about 35mm photos. When I had a slide projector, I used to project my Kodachrome slides on my den wall about 4' x 6', and they were razor sharp!

[orsetto]

I'm always slightly amused/horrified by the digital hostility that inevitably surfaces in these types of threads. The very idea that someone might opt to use a balky rattletrap vintage camera and endure all the limitations of film seems to strike some of you as the height of absurdity and/or some sort of affront to your own preference for digital. Why can't you wrap your minds around this? Its not like they're claiming 35mm film offers intrinsically better image quality, so why keep repeating the obvious point that a digital P&S or even some phones wipe the floor with 35mm? It seems pretty clear right from the first post in each such thread that the OPs are perfectly aware of digital's advantages, and often already own quite sophisticated digital systems.

 

Choosing to use film today, especially 35mm, almost always involves a desire to engage with a different process (and by necessity, perhaps different imagery). The image in and of itself is not the be all and end all in these experiments: the journey toward the eventual image is the reward. Many of these folks skew younger, and may never in their lives have held or used a film camera. They're fascinated by the craftsmanship of vintage metal film gear, by the mostly mechanical nature. The enforced waiting time for results from the lab, or the added responsibility of self-processing, are viewed as new experiences to savor (instead of limitations). Most of all, they simply enjoy handling and using the old gear.

 

Sure, theres an element of hipsterism to it, and no small degree of Instagram herd mentality. But that still leaves a great many people who just enjoy working with older tools, and find the image quality tradeoffs acceptable to achieve the overall experience. Not everyone is pixel peeping, or printing large, or selling images commercially: theres a range. Condemning an enthusiast for using a 35mm film camera like FE2 is no different than sneering at the wealthy dilettante who blows $60K on a Phase One XT and 150 MP IQ4 to shoot the same tired cliche landscapes everyone else manages just as well with a Nikon D850 or Hasselblad X1D. Different photographers get different satisfaction from different tools and mediums, why this is so difficult for some to swallow as a concept is baffling.

 

If we return to rodeo_joe's car analogy: true, changing one's car does not make one a better driver. But who said becoming a better driver was the only possible motivation? Does Jay Leno drive a Duesenberg because he thinks it makes him a better driver, or because he admires the experience of driving the old jalopy and can afford to own/maintain it? Almost all of today's supercars employ automatic transmissions, primarily because they shave two tenths of a second off some arcane performance parameters at the track that are truly relevant to only 1 out of 100 buyers.

 

A great many sports car enthusiasts are disgusted with the demise of manual transmissions, and would be willing to pay a premium to at least have the option, but are being denied by mfrs because the numbers don't work for them (financially or in performance comparisons with competitors). If the experience of manual transmission is crucial to your enjoyment of a sports car, you will seek out vintage or "inferior" models and be happy as a clam, despite the fact the newest model with auto paddle shift can smoke the older ride into oblivion.

 

People like what they like, and many like multiple things. I would no sooner give up my Hasselblad 500cm, Mamiya C220 and Nikon F2 as I would my much higher performance digital kit: each gives me a different pleasure. And aside from cult objects like Nikon FM3a, Leica and Rolleiflex, most vintage film gear is readily affordable today: since it doesn't cost much to scratch the itch, no reason not to scratch it.

[conrad_hoffman]

There's nothing pitiful about 35mm photos. When I had a slide projector, I used to project my Kodachrome slides on my den wall about 4' x 6', and they were razor sharp!

 

Well, you've obviously never done 4x5 transparencies! OK, I like 35mm as much as anybody, but back at RIT they spent a huge amount of time explaining that professional level commercial work should never be done with 35mm. All prints had to be 11x14 so any technical flaws would stand out when viewed from about 6" away. Old school pixel peeping! Digital has raised the bar a lot and a gorgeous 11x14 can be had by almost anybody, but I still miss working with the 4x5. I did do some Ektachrome, but have never seen a projector. Best we did was a light box and magnifier, just not the same.

[mike_halliwell]

Ektachrome, but have never seen a projector.

I guess you could use a 5x4 enlarger as a projector with a HUGE but cold LED source?

[BeBu Lamar]

I guess you could use a 5x4 enlarger as a projector with a HUGE but cold LED source?

 

And I guess Conrad has or had a 5x4 enlarger.

[mike_halliwell]

And I guess Conrad has or had a 5x4 enlarger.

That's why I mentioned the LED source. A conventional bulb big enough, and bright enough, to project 5 x 4 to 1/2 wall size would be immense... and traditionally very hot.

 

Welcome to a 200w LED... or 4 x 50w. That's over a 1000w of incandescent power.

 

To quote from the old American Express advent..

 

'That'll do nicely'....

[conrad_hoffman]

 

Yes, I have a 4x5 enlarger, but I think I'm going to need a much bigger lamp house and some condensers! BTW, what's this "5x4" stuff? It's always been 4x5. Is that some kind of over-the-pond thing, like torches, boots & bangers?

[Mary Doo]

I'm always slightly amused/horrified by the digital hostility that inevitably surfaces in these types of threads. The very idea that someone might opt to use a balky rattletrap vintage camera and endure all the limitations of film seems to strike some of you as the height of absurdity and/or some sort of affront to your own preference for digital. Why can't you wrap your minds around this? Its not like they're claiming 35mm film offers intrinsically better image quality, so why keep repeating the obvious point that a digital P&S or even some phones wipe the floor with 35mm? It seems pretty clear right from the first post in each such thread that the OPs are perfectly aware of digital's advantages, and often already own quite sophisticated digital systems.

Well said. Not sure about the Jay Leno analogy though - seems a little disproportionate? Do realize, too, that sometimes people just want to poke a little fun. ;)

Edited March 22, 2020 by Mary Doo

[mike_halliwell]

I think I'm going to need a much bigger lamp house and some condensers!

I used to print about 3 x 4 ft from a 5x4" neg by rotating the enlarger head by 90degrees and taping paper to the wall.

 

I remember it had a 250w photoflood bulb and no cooler fan...I suppose that's like a low power projector? 150mm slow enlarger lens.... and minutes for exposure.

 

Yup, more light needed!

 

Interestingly many UK measurements of an A x B nature are bigger integer first.

 

So, where's the flash in flashlight...:D

[conrad_hoffman]

Shouldn't that be 4 x 3 ft? I had a medium format Beseler for decades but only rotated the head maybe once. I did do some large prints with a 4 x 5 Omega by flipping around and projecting to the floor. Light isn't usually a problem with 4 x 5 with condensers; don't know about diffusion. We've gotten away from the original topic. I also have a lot of AiS lenses. I've had the original F (unmetered), an FG, an FM and an F3HP. The F was a brick. The FM was a wonderful camera in terms of size and handling. I got rid of everything except the F3HP, which I never used very much, since I got it near the big switch to digital. I kept it because it had more capability than anything else and handles well. For candid street stuff, I'd probably go with the FM and smallish lenses because it's smaller on top and pocketable if you have big pockets.

[BeBu Lamar]

[ATTACH=full]1334086[/ATTACH]

 

Yes, I have a 4x5 enlarger, but I think I'm going to need a much bigger lamp house and some condensers! BTW, what's this "5x4" stuff? It's always been 4x5. Is that some kind of over-the-pond thing, like torches, boots & bangers?

You have some cool HP instruments when HP was the best. I feel sad now.

[conrad_hoffman]

Love the older HP but you can't see the other side of the bench where my General Radio Corp. equipment collection resides. All of it working and in daily use. An interesting thing is if you read the history of the General Radio Corp., they studied the Leitz company practices and had some of the most progressive employee benefits of the time. See, I can turn any topic into something photo related. ;)

 

Some good stuff here- Genrad Historical Books

[BeBu Lamar]

To counter that point, my MG(that's older than my favorite F2) which boasts such luxuries as roll up windows, a pre-engaged starter, and synchronization on all 4 gears makes me FEEL a lot more in touch with everything than my Lincoln that has more features than I care to count.

 

The film analogy here would be that even if ultimately I get inferior results(take longer to get to my destination and arrive more tired) I enjoy the process of getting there(shooting slides, printing B&W in the dark room). Also, even if the result is inferior, there's still a certain satisfaction to looking at a slide on a lightbox, seeing a print I've slaved over getting just right/to my taste, and arriving smelling like exhaust with my hair messed up.

 

I can't do analogy of cameras and cars. For me I don't really see that I would enjoy today's car any better than cars 50 years ago. I don't use the 50 years old one because I can't keep them working. 50 year old cameras are plenty that works fine.

[ben_hutcherson]

You have some cool HP instruments when HP was the best. I feel sad now.

 

HP Instruments are still around-just under a different name.

 

I have an HP Mass Spectrometer(or rather Mass Selective Detector) sitting over in the next room. I brought it home with me from work during the shut-down to fit newer electronics to it...

[Brian1664876441]

I still use a Tektronix 2467B at work and a Tektronix 2465B at home. I also use Digital scopes and Logic analyzers.

There are some things that an Analog scope make easier to catch. Many things that newer Digital scopes make easier to find. Many times, I'm had to write custom data acquisition code to turn a computer into a test device,

 

When shooting film- I much prefer using a Nikon F2Sb, Leica M3, or Nikon SP. For digital- prefer manual focus lenses on the Df and vintage lenses on the M9 and M Monochrom. I also wrote my own DNG processing code in FORTRAN-77. Just part of enjoying the process of making an image.

[BeBu Lamar]

HP Instruments are still around-just under a different name.

 

I have an HP Mass Spectrometer(or rather Mass Selective Detector) sitting over in the next room. I brought it home with me from work during the shut-down to fit newer electronics to it...

The HP test and measurement was spun off twice to Agilent and then now Keysight.

[andylynn]

I have a friend who seriously covets a 1970s wood paneled Country Squire wagon. It’s a terrible idea by reasonable metrics, when for not much more money than one in good condition you could have a small SUV that would drive circles around it and get twice the mileage, but there’s something interesting about vintage things.

 

You can get an older full frame DSLR or an A7 for what a nice FM2 sells for, but so what? It’s a different experience of photography. That’s what those of us who aren’t pros are in it for. Not maximum pixels but the experience. If you’d enjoy using a manual focus film camera, that’s what these things are here for.