Want a film camera - FE2 or FM2n?

[BeBu Lamar]

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.

 

How much an older FF DSLR or an A7? I do have a nice FM2n. For my own use it's not much better than the FM which I have 2.

[andylynn]

How much an older FF DSLR or an A7? I do have a nice FM2n. For my own use it's not much better than the FM which I have 2.

D700s go for under $400 these days on eBay or BGN condition from keh.com. It’s easy to get a good condition A7 for around $500.

[glen_h]

D700s go for under $400 these days on eBay or BGN condition from keh.com. It’s easy to get a good condition A7 for around $500.

 

Sounds about right. I got a used D700 for $800 about four years ago,

and with shutter count less than 20,000.

 

I still have the used D200 I got before that.

 

Both know what to do with AI lenses, and I sometimes use them that way.

 

Some of the old feel, but not all of it. Maybe enough, though, some of the time.

[conrad_hoffman]

I loved my D200 because it worked so well with the older lenses, but the Z6 just smokes it on image quality and features.

[rodeo_joe1]

Is that some kind of over-the-pond thing, like torches, boots & bangers?

Why yes sirrah, it most certainly is!

We also walk on the pavement, and snigger - schoolboy fashion - at 'fanny packs'. In addition, we can easily distinguish a donkey from our backside.

[rodeo_joe1]

Someone falling on their ass in the UK.

 

P.S. I'm obviously not great at drawing. That's why I took up photography.

[ben_hutcherson]

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

 

Agilent may have exited test and measuring, but they are still very much going strong with some other old HP product lines(scientific instruments).

 

Here's a photo from a project I'm working on for work-an HP mass spec(the Bayard-Alpart gauge on the front is the only thing visibly marked HP, although the whole thing is HP, and the tube is rebranded Granville-Phillips) with an Agilent branded new replacement part(column nut) and with a blank ferrule from a company Agilent absorbed-Varian. Agilent is actually a bit of a dirty word to some folks, as they killed off some great Varian product lines. The Varian 300-MS TQ I have is an outstanding instrument(that got passed off to Bruker, which killed it). The bigger one, though, is our couple of million dollars worth of Varian NMRs that are now orphaned.

 

[BeBu Lamar]

Agilent may have exited test and measuring, but they are still very much going strong with some other old HP product lines(scientific instruments).

 

Here's a photo from a project I'm working on for work-an HP mass spec(the Bayard-Alpart gauge on the front is the only thing visibly marked HP, although the whole thing is HP, and the tube is rebranded Granville-Phillips) with an Agilent branded new replacement part(column nut) and with a blank ferrule from a company Agilent absorbed-Varian. Agilent is actually a bit of a dirty word to some folks, as they killed off some great Varian product lines. The Varian 300-MS TQ I have is an outstanding instrument(that got passed off to Bruker, which killed it). The bigger one, though, is our couple of million dollars worth of Varian NMRs that are now orphaned.

 

[ATTACH=full]1334346[/ATTACH]

 

I just think both David and Bill are rolling in their graves to see the great company they founded turned out this way.

[mark_crown4]

For the record, I'm not saying that you cannot take pictures with the FM or FE because of their dimmer focussing screens - I just happened to find it way easier to focus on the FM2N/FM3A - very quick when isolating the subject matter. I have an FE - a lovely camera, now retired because of a fault - the screen is definitely dimmer especially with longer lenses. Way back in the day when I had the chance to buy an FM I compared it to an old Pentax KX at the shop and even the KX screen was better for me than the FM and I bought the KX. Focussing on it was a breeze and I wish I still had it - the KX was/is a lovely camera too. The M series that followed were not for me! The MX is over-rated and not a patch on the FM/FM2/FM2n. Try moving the shutter speed dial quickly on an MX when taking a shot and compare it to that on an FM/FM2.

 

Also do not underestimate technical improvements since the FM/FE. I have 3 modern FM type screens and I maintain that you will focus much more easily with a brighter screen than a duller one. A prospective buyer needs to know this, dependent on his or her eyesight and that is worth pointing out.

 

BTW - the Englishman falling on his ass (arse?) - is that my Prime Minister , Boris Johnson by any chance? Because it sums him up a treat if it is! I just wish that the ass was Covid-19. Sadly, it seems to be the British public who is breaking the fall of the bumbling fool that he is.

[conrad_hoffman]

That's one reason I like the interchangeable screen bodies. You can choose the best screen for the lens and what you're doing. AFAIK, it's mostly the screen that determines the brightness, unless the mirror is passing a lot of light to a metering sensor or something. It's probably another knock on DX cameras with manual lenses because they optimize for brightness rather than the ability to focus.

[Brian1664876441]

I used the screens for the FE2 in the FE- just use the exposure compensation dial, set to +1/2ev or compensate by setting the ISO lower by 1/2 stop. The screen is brighter than what the meter is calibrated for, the 1/2stop evens things out.

[orsetto]

If you're only going to use small, relatively fast (f/2.8 or wider aperture) prime lenses, the FM screen brightness will be a non-issue for most users. Back when they were new, I owned a couple of FM2N bodies along with my older FM and my tank-like F2AS (the meters all work the same so it was convenient). I honestly never noticed any particular screen brightness or contrast advantage to the FM2N over the original FM, which seemed to me equal to the F2, which was long the standard for "best focus screen contrast in an SLR". I don't doubt some people see a very strong difference, but it isn't worth getting stressed over: outside this thread I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to the original FM/FE screen as "too dim to use". If compared directly to a solar inferno like the Olympus OM1, then yeah, the FM might be perceived as slightly dimmer (but then so would nearly any other camera, including the FM2/FE2). Compared to an F/F2/F3, I can't tell the difference to an FM at all, and I've shot all of 'em at night on NYC subway platforms.

 

What does make a huge difference is having the proper correction diopter screwed into the eyepiece. Vintage thumb-wound film cameras do not have built-in adjustable vision correction like the cheapest DSLR of today: you need to buy a separate lens that screws into the eyepiece. All Nikons come from the factory with slightly funky viewfinder optics: most users are fine with it, but if you wear glasses chances are you'll need an additional correction lens between your glasses and the Nikon finder. The FM/FE finder optics are slightly further "out" to begin with than the F/F2/F3 or Nikkormat: the screen will seem a trifle blurry to a degree you may not immediately register as a problem, or your mind will interpret it as "geez, this screen is crappy". It isn't the screen: its the finder focus, which will clear right up with the proper correction lens (a Nikon 0.0 or +0.5 works for many nearsighted users).

 

If you've got the cash to burn, the FM3a is amazing, and the FM2N nearly as good if you don't need AE. But if you're on a tight budget and covet an FM2N, the original FM is no slouch at half or a third the price. If changing the screen is that important to you, you'll either need to tolerate the AE and electronics of the FE or FE2, or shell out the ransom for an FM2. The original FE + optional slightly brighter Type 2 or Type 3 screen will be cheaper than an FE2 and MUCH cheaper than an FM2, FM2N or FM3a. All things considered, at today's inflated second-hand prices for FM2 and FE2, I'd probably skip both in favor of the F3 for the same money. I hate the F3 meter display with a passion, but if I was gonna drop $300 on a vintage Nikon film SLR today it would be my choice. The F3 has more optional screens than most camera systems have lenses: there's one to suit any preference of brightness or focus aid.

[rodeo_joe1]

BTW - the Englishman falling on his ass (arse?) - is that my Prime Minister , Boris Johnson by any chance? Because it sums him up a treat if it is!

I may subconsciously have had that particular ass in mind at the time!

[mark_crown4]

If you're only going to use small, relatively fast (f/2.8 or wider aperture) prime lenses, the FM screen brightness will be a non-issue for most users. Back when they were new, I owned a couple of FM2N bodies along with my older FM and my tank-like F2AS (the meters all work the same so it was convenient). I honestly never noticed any particular screen brightness or contrast advantage to the FM2N over the original FM, which seemed to me equal to the F2, which was long the standard for "best focus screen contrast in an SLR". I don't doubt some people see a very strong difference, but it isn't worth getting stressed over: outside this thread I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to the original FM/FE screen as "too dim to use". If compared directly to a solar inferno like the Olympus OM1, then yeah, the FM might be perceived as slightly dimmer (but then so would nearly any other camera, including the FM2/FE2). Compared to an F/F2/F3, I can't tell the difference to an FM at all, and I've shot all of 'em at night on NYC subway platforms.

 

What does make a huge difference is having the proper correction diopter screwed into the eyepiece. Vintage thumb-wound film cameras do not have built-in adjustable vision correction like the cheapest DSLR of today: you need to buy a separate lens that screws into the eyepiece. All Nikons come from the factory with slightly funky viewfinder optics: most users are fine with it, but if you wear glasses chances are you'll need an additional correction lens between your glasses and the Nikon finder. The FM/FE finder optics are slightly further "out" to begin with than the F/F2/F3 or Nikkormat: the screen will seem a trifle blurry to a degree you may not immediately register as a problem, or your mind will interpret it as "geez, this screen is crappy". It isn't the screen: its the finder focus, which will clear right up with the proper correction lens (a Nikon 0.0 or +0.5 works for many nearsighted users).

 

If you've got the cash to burn, the FM3a is amazing, and the FM2N nearly as good if you don't need AE. But if you're on a tight budget and covet an FM2N, the original FM is no slouch at half or a third the price. If changing the screen is that important to you, you'll either need to tolerate the AE and electronics of the FE or FE2, or shell out the ransom for an FM2. The original FE + optional slightly brighter Type 2 or Type 3 screen will be cheaper than an FE2 and MUCH cheaper than an FM2, FM2N or FM3a. All things considered, at today's inflated second-hand prices for FM2 and FE2, I'd probably skip both in favor of the F3 for the same money. I hate the F3 meter display with a passion, but if I was gonna drop $300 on a vintage Nikon film SLR today it would be my choice. The F3 has more optional screens than most camera systems have lenses: there's one to suit any preference of brightness or focus aid.

 

I had an F3 once - with a standard prism - I agree with you that it is still a hell of a camera and I wish I still had mine. As for your comment about dioptres - I think that the best advice we can give anyone is to try the camera and see how they get on with what it is fitted with - dioptres, screens etc. I can only tell people what I have seen from actually using these models and what works best for me - which I have made clear. My eyesight is changing as I get older, and I when I work with macro or telephoto lenses the brighter screens are a real big help to nail focus.

[lahuasteca]

A little bit of update on my order to KEH. The original order from KEH was actually retrieved by them before it arrived - some sort of technicality. The charges were refunded back to my account. Today I just ordered an FE2 in EX+ condition plus an 85 mm 1.8 H lens which had been AI'd. I prefer the older lens for the hyperfocal markings which go down to f4 - the 85 2.0 AIS lens stop the hyperfocal marks at f8. I prefer use the hyyperfocal marks for street shooting. Anyway, thanks for all the comments - I didn't expect so much response. I"m much more comfortable with the FE2 than the FA - electronics, but still not at the level of the FA. I've owned an FE2 in the past, am quite familiar with it, and look forward to getting back using it. For film developing I'll use Precision Photo in Austin Texas which offer a high res. scan (4000 x 6000) at time of developing.

[glen_h]

(snip)

As for your comment about dioptres - I think that the best advice we can give anyone is to try the camera and see how they get on with what it is fitted with - dioptres, screens etc. I can only tell people what I have seen from actually using these models and what works best for me - which I have made clear. My eyesight is changing as I get older, and I when I work with macro or telephoto lenses the brighter screens are a real big help to nail focus.

 

People with glasses need to watch our for viewfinders with metal rims.

 

Mostly I don't have problems wearing my glasses with normal viewfinders,

 

I don't think Nikon makes corrective eyepieces down to -6, either.

[orsetto]

The 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor is my favorite lens aside from the 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4. I've got two 85mm Nikkor HC (multicoated) variants, one with the genuine AI upgrade and the other with a clean AI hack. It fills a niche as the "poor man's 85/1.4", although these days it isn't so cheap. Lots of us old hands feel the H/HC are still the best compromise of all Nikon's 85mm film versions (size/speed/performance). Also (arguably) the best-looking pre-AI "scallop ring" lens you can hang off a Nikon film body.

 

Enjoy it, and your FE2!

 

[Brian1664876441]

What batteries are you using in the DS-12?

I used to modify batteries for cordless phones for my DS-1. Even found a CH-11 case for it.

 

Agree about the 85/1.8, I have the last version and it is factory Ai modified.

[orsetto]

What batteries are you using in the DS-12?

 

Over many years, I've discovered these DS-1, DS-2 and esp DS-12 gizmos have wide sample-to-sample variations in their tolerance for battery substitutes. Some of them happily work with anything you cobble together, others have flatly refused to move a millimeter unless fitted with the actual dedicated battery. They go in and out of my possession every couple years like clockwork: it seems every time I decide its foolish to hold on to such a gimmicky collectible and sell it, another one appears at my door attached to a cheap broken F2 or in a Nikon grab bag from eBay (I'm almost never lucky obtaining any other sort of camera gear bargain, but have a knack for stumbling over these DS toys).

 

This particular DS-12 is a lot more hospitable to quick-n-dirty battery substitutes than others I've owned, so I think it'll be a keeper. Right now its running off a 28L 6v lithium, fitted into the battery chamber with a coin at each end and a strip of bubble wrap. In the past I've used similar 6v alkalines (such as powers the Nikkormat EL and garage door openers), but the lithium seems to make the DS-12 more responsive/quick and lasts much longer. My holy grail is the elusive, very rare DB-1 external battery case that takes four standard alkaline C cells, but no way I'm paying the $1,500 they typically sell for to collectors. Nikon really would have made it far more practical if they had offered a simple patch cord allowing it to be powered from the motor drive, but inexplicable even the AC power station requires the use of separate connectors to motor an AE device.

 

Last year I found a DH-1 charger for cheap, and decided to give one of Sover Wong's "brand new DN-1" batteries a try. That was absolutely fantastic: I set the camera in front of a window and let it track the exposure on "continuous" from afternoon thru night, with people and cars shifting the exposure frequently. The Sover battery lasted about 5-6 hours per charge under that challenge. Eventually I sold it along with the charger, because I don't use the EE Servo enough to bother with rechargeable battery maintenance: its easier to just pop in a disposable a couple times a year. YMMV.

Edited March 27, 2020 by orsetto

[mark_crown4]

A little bit of update on my order to KEH. The original order from KEH was actually retrieved by them before it arrived - some sort of technicality. The charges were refunded back to my account. Today I just ordered an FE2 in EX+ condition plus an 85 mm 1.8 H lens which had been AI'd. I prefer the older lens for the hyperfocal markings which go down to f4 - the 85 2.0 AIS lens stop the hyperfocal marks at f8. I prefer use the hyyperfocal marks for street shooting. Anyway, thanks for all the comments - I didn't expect so much response. I"m much more comfortable with the FE2 than the FA - electronics, but still not at the level of the FA. I've owned an FE2 in the past, am quite familiar with it, and look forward to getting back using it. For film developing I'll use Precision Photo in Austin Texas which offer a high res. scan (4000 x 6000) at time of developing.

 

 

Well, may I join Orsetto in hoping that you enjoy the FE2 - and its great to see a post talking about analogue photography so passionately.

[andylynn]

Awesome. Post some photos when you’ve had a chance to shoot it!

[orsetto]

People with glasses need to watch our for viewfinders with metal rims.

 

Yes, this can be a bit of a problem with FE, FE2, FM, FM2, FA and FM3a. For reasons only Nikon could explain, the normal plain eyepiece that comes with these camera has a rubber coated rim to prevent eyeglass scratching, but all of the optional corrective eyepieces have serrated metal rims guaranteed to shred your eyeglasses.

 

Theres a workaround, but its a bit inconvenient. The smaller cameras have the same eyepiece thread as the larger Nikkormats and professional F, F2, and (non-HP) F3. Their standard plain eyepieces have a sturdy removable rubber eyeglass protection ring, which can be transferred to any of their corrective eyepieces. The catch is, these larger eyepieces will fit the smaller cameras (good) but the rime are a bit wider, overlapping the top edge of the camera back (not so good). Your eyeglasses are protected, but you need to take off the eyepiece when loading/unloading film. Annoying, but worth it to avoid scarring your glasses.

 

I don't think Nikon makes corrective eyepieces down to -6, either.

 

They did at least offer a -5, depending on prescription that might not be quite enough to allow use of a camera without eyeglasses. But if you keep your glasses on, it is rare to require additional correction beyond the range of -2 thru +2. Most glasses-wearing Nikon photographers I've known are within -1 thru +1: they just need a slight shift to perfectly match their eyeglass optics to Nikon's finder optics.

[ben_hutcherson]

FWIW, I wear glasses and I find that the standard -1 works well for me. On cameras with variable diopters, I end up really close to this value also.

 

A while back, I bought a second pair of glasses with glass lenses. I don't use them for every day wear because they weigh a ton and are uncomfortable, but grab them if I know I'm going to be using cameras with metal.

 

Unfortunately, I don't always remember to do this, and my regular glasses have plenty of "battle scars".

[mwmcbroom]

I don't know what I can possibly add to the previous 122 comments, other than to mention my preferences Nikon. I've always liked the FE. It's a comfortable camera -- just the right size and weight, feels good in my hand. And I've always been a fan of match-needle metering, which is why I prefer it over the FM/FM2/FM2n. I've only recently acquired an FE2 and I like it just as much as my FE, except for one caveat -- I own a few non-AI lenses and these cannot be mounted to an FE2 without running the risk of crushing the AI metering tab. The FE (and FM) have tabs that can be pivoted up and out of the way. The FE2/FM2/FM2n do not. I don't know about the FM3a. I've never had occasion to use one.

 

About focusing screens, I got used to plain matte screens over 35 years ago when I used to shoot with a Canon F-1. I had a few slow lenses in my kit, so I got quite comfortable using the plain screens. So much so, that with every camera that I own that has interchangeable screens, I have found plain matte screens for them and installed them. Including both my FE and FE2.

[lahuasteca]

April 2, 2020 - FE2 and 85 1.8 AI'D lens arrived - look great. Unfortunately - stay-at-home - can't get out and put it to work. We're under a non-essential travel shutdown (LRGV of South Texas). I did check KEH prices this morning for FM2n - $450 black EX and $507 chrome EX+. Needless to say, at those prices, it was an easy decision FE2 or FM2n. They have no FM3a's currently listed. FWIW, my film choices are Kodak Portra 400 and Fuji Provia 100F.