FM3A vs. F100

[bobpensik]

Ok well i know that i am bringing up the age old question of MF vs. AF but i have been

doing lots of reading around the web and scrolling through hundreds of posts here at

photo.net and i just can't seem to make up my mind between the FM3A and the F100

 

I am looking for my first SLR and will be using it for all kinds of shooting, landscape,

nature, people, etc... i really have no knowledge of photography past basic point and

shooting that i have done in the past, but i am willing to take the time to learn. I will also

be taking a photography class in the fall to which i need to be able to use the manual

function of the camera whether it be a MF or an AF camera.

 

Here are some things i have been debating between for these cameras:

 

F100

 

PROS:

 

- Seems like a good body that will last a while and be very reliable

 

- Has lots of functions and options that will take me into more advanced photography

 

- Is highly reccemonded by many people

 

- Has both AF and MF options

 

- Can meter with old MF lenses

 

CONS:

 

- Is FAR more expensive then the FM3A

 

- I will end up spending lots of money on batteries

 

- I won't be able to purchase as many lenses because of price of body

 

- Is not as solid built as the FM3A

 

- For the cost of the F100 i can buy a FM3A and N80

 

FM3A

 

PROS:

 

- Virtually no batteries required

 

- Solid build construction

 

- Very good reviews all over, seems to be adored by all that own it

 

- Will teach me the basics of photography

 

- Still has many options to take me into more advanced photography

 

- Looks like a great camera!

 

CONS:

 

- Does not have AF

 

- No spot meter, or 3D Matrix Metering

 

- People seem to have issues with it not properly reacting to f/1.4 lenses @ f/1.4

 

So as you can see these are some of the things i have been throwing around in my head. I

mean the F100 looks like a great camera, but it is very expensive and as i said for that

price i could buy a FM3A and N80! (However i don't have a problem spending the money

on a F100 if it would be the better choice). But do i really need or want both an AF and MF

camera?? if i just buy the FM3A then i will have more money for lenses, but the lenses i will

buy will most likely be the cheaper and better built MF lenses. That in 5 - 10 years may

not be compatiable with Nikon cameras!

 

Will i really miss AF that much if i go for the FM3A?? i don't see myself shooting a lot of

sports or fast action really, but that is just in my immediate future, who knows in like a

couple years! i guess the main question i am asking, is the AF really worth it??? i am young

(18 years old) so i have good eyesight and don't wear glasses or anything, so that is not an

issue. i would like this camera to last me a while.

 

Any insight and suggestions would be great!

 

Thanks

[bill_hayes1]

I think you've answered your own question. Buy the N80 and reevaluate in 5 years.

[rob_malkin]

well I have used a F100 and a N80 for about a year now. I have only used the FM3A for a few hours. But this is what I think about your sitauation,

 

"I will end up spending lots of money on batteries" not so, if you use it without the MB-15 (optional battery grip with additional shutter release) you can use normal rechargable batteries. And its very good on battry consumption anyway.

 

"I won't be able to purchase as many lenses because of price of body" maybe. Dont forget to look at third party lenses. Sigma and Tamron offer good quality at a very good price. People will tell you that nikkor galss is much better but I dont listen to that rubbish. If you can use a camera, its up to you to make the photo a good one. I know of photographers that use "crap" lenses and put my work to shame.

 

"Is not as solid built as the FM3A " I think the F100 is really very well made, but the FM3A does feel just as solid.

 

"Does not have AF" if you have good eyes, just do it the old way. Good photos have been made with manual lenses for 150 years.

 

"No spot meter, or 3D Matrix Metering" I cant fault the meter on the F100, so you may have a point here. But its not oftern that I use the spot meter. I guess if you shoot a lot of slide the matrix may come in handy.

 

One thing you have not said is the viewfinder. The F100 is a dream to use. Bright, big and its really easy to see the whole frame without having to dislocate your nose first. From MY experience the FM3A has a poor viewfinder. I wear glasses all the time, and there is NO way that I can see the whole frame on the FM3A.

 

So if you wear glasses I think you would be let down bu the FM3A. You may look at a seconf hand NIkon F3 HP. The F3 HP is a semi automatic, very similar to the FM3A but is just as easy to see the full frame as in the F100. I dont know a lot about the F3 HP but I do know that its easy to look thru.

 

As a final note,

 

I love my F100. Its great. But.... as I live in a bad part of town I tend to take my N80 out more. Just in case I get stuck up. I would be just as happy with the F100 in my hands as a N80. The viewfinder is not as good, but close. So have a look at that.

 

Also have a feel in a shop. You will be naturally more interested in one.

 

As you can see the viewfinder is important to me, as I wear glasses and I am very interested to see the whole frame. If you dont wear glasses then a lot of my opinions will not mean all that much to you.

 

Anyway, I must stop this from becoming an essay.

 

Rob

[asimh]

be sure not to discount the used market realm for the f100, or anything else for that matter.

[davidfink_photography]

Hi Bob,

 

First off, congratulations on narrowing your choice to two wonderful F-mount cameras. Good news is, you can't possibly go far wrong with either of them. Bad news (as you already know) is, it's a very difficult choice between them. You've done a good job laying out some of the variables and differences. (If you haven't already, you might want to spend some time exploring www.nikonians.com.....there you'll find an F100 forum and a forum devoted to manual body Nikons.)

 

I own both of the bodies you're trying to decide between. Two things I think I'd dispel on your F100 "cons" list....(1) The cost of batteries is a non-issue. Each set of AAs will last you many rolls. (2) The build quality of the F100 is not dramatically inferior to that of the FM3A; both are rugged and well made; the F100 is, of course, heavier and has more electronics. But each will serve you well for a long time.

 

I wish I could make your choice for you, but clearly you're the only one who can really determine which of these cameras matches up best with your needs and objectives. Clearly, the F100 is a bit more versatile because of AF and more metering/automation modes. But the FM3A wins on portability and affordability.

 

I guess my bias is toward the FM3A as a "learner's" camera, because there is less opportunity to give into the temptation of allowing automated bells and whistles to make photographic decisions for you.

 

Ask any other specific questions that occur to you.

 

Best of luck in your decision. Let us know which way you go.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[davidfink_photography]

I was writing my answer as Rob was posting his.

 

I'd just like to disagree slightly with Rob's take on the FM3A's viewfinder. I don't find it any more difficult to work with than the F100's.....and I have old eyes. For me, both cameras' viewfinders are a delight.

 

David

[bobpensik]

Well thanks very much David and Rob for the insighful comments

 

i was very worried about the battery life in the F100, as i didn't really want to be buying

batteries all the time, that could really be a damper, but if it is not so much an issue then

that is good to hear

 

i find mysef tending towards the FM3A some days and then the F100 other days!! lol, it is

a crazy cycle, but i am will keep looking around and reading more, i wish i could afford

both!

 

please keep the comments coming! :-)

[rob_malkin]

Just to add a bit more to the viewfinder thing.

 

With the F100 you can see the whole frame, each corner, and not have to move your face. All you need to move if your eye, ie, look at each corner.

 

When I use the FM3A and the N80 I can see all four corners but I have to move my whole face. So if it was on a tripod I would have to move my whole head. It pretty crap.

 

Viewfinders are in my opinion the most important part of a camera body. It shows you what you are about to take a picture off. Have a feel for yourself, dont bother to put a lens on each one, just hold it to the light. And you will see what I mean.

 

Just my 2 pence worth, well 3 I think.

[ky2]

That is really a question whether you need AF+Motor+Fancy metering, vs. MF+C.A. metering. The F100 is a great camera, but it is better suited for AF lenses. The Fm3a (Which I own) is built for MF lenses. I'd take my Fm3a over any other Nikon camera-- it's dependable, and as it has a wonderful, simple interface (you got to like match-needle metering to appreciate it) it DOES teach you photography. btw, I haven't changed the battery since I bought it a year ago.

[andrew_somerset1]

Re F100 battery life, I use NiMH batteries and I can go out and shoot all day on a set. I think the problem is overstated and may relate to some early models, or possibly to the habits of individual photographers.

 

Re the viewfinder, I can't compare the F100 to the FM3a but the F100 smokes the FM2 if you wear glasses (as I do). But on the F100, if you're left-eye dominant (as I am) and are endowed with a remarkable nose (as I am), you'd better lock that focus selector when your thumb isn't on it!

 

The only way you can really get an idea of usability issues like that is to handle the cameras.

 

My take is that you're probably better off with the simplicity of the FM3a. The F100 will be more intimidating -- five focus modes, three metering modes, four exposure modes, etc. There's a lot of little switches to think about.

[ky2]

I was very successful with my 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4, AI/S variants-- never a problem (never heard there was a problem, either). As for AF-- I came from the AF world, and I'm not going back there soon: MF may be slower on a bright day, but I'll beat any AF camera out there in available light focusing...

[davidfink_photography]

Again on the viewfinder issue....what Rob is rightly referring to is the matter of eyepoint (or eye "relief"). And yes, the FM3A has a very low eyepoint (lower than the F100), which means that if you wear eyeglasses when you shoot (which I do not), it would be difficult to see the entire viewfinder on the FM3A. In that regard I agree the F100 would certainly be preferable for eyeglass wearers.

 

I believe you said you don't wear glasses, Bob? If that's the case, then I think you'd find the FM3A's viewfinder very pleasing (as you would also the F100's).

 

David

[todd peach seattle, washi]

OK, first thing, I don't own an FM3a, but I've played with it. I owned FM and FE bodies for years, not anymore. I own an F100 and a whole bunch of other Nikon bodies.

 

If you're interested in AF, I highly recommend an F100. It does all of its assigned tasks very well, and with fast glass I think it might even surprise Yaron how well it focusses in available light (if there's enough light to read by, the F100 will nail it fast, down to f/1.8 @ 1/30th @ ISO 800, maybe lower). I would not recommend an F100 for manual focus, unless you want to be a slave to the electronic rangefinder. The viewfinder does not have enough tooth or magnification for good MF evaluation throughout the screen.

 

I did not realize how restrictive the FM/FE viewfinders were until I tried the F2 and F3 cameras. I would never go back to an FM/FE series camera for general use. The viewfinder is just a chore. As a compact durable camera for certain kinds of travel, perhaps. I have that slot filled in my current kit by, of all things, an FG. Not very durable, but cheap enough to be disposable and terribly compact.

 

If you're interested in an FM3a, I'd take a hard look at an F3. These things are going for way cheap now compared to what I think their value is ($235 in 'bgn' condition from www.keh.com). The F3 has a truly wonderful viewfinder image, and any focus screen you can dream of has been made for it. Solid and well-built, truly a system camera. Snatch the viewfinder off with one hand and do a quick waist-level shot or inverted 'hail mary'. Add a 6x stovepipe viewfinder if you want to do macro. Add the MD-4 and an MN-2, and you'll get blistering speed.

 

The F3 with an MD-4 is my favorite camera for indoor sports where focus is better guided by hand. My F100 is swell, but when I'm shooting things like basketball, I am better than AF at deciding where in the swirl of bodies I want the focus to be.

 

One more voice to add to the confusion of choice......

[frank uhlig]

On the F 100, simply set the light meter to be active for 4 sec only, and your batteries (Lithium pair of AAs; 17$ for a quartet at Walmart) will last your around 50 or more 36 exposure rolls. I change the batteries about once a year, after 50 films, and with developing and enlarging, ... the batteries are the minor part of the equation, Bob!

 

About 16 c a roll. And a roll costs 10$ + to develop, print well (non-Walmart, please!)

 

I am a little concerned about your prioprities here, though: You want to learn a craft/art. Commendable! But you aim to start out with some of the very best equipment ever made.

 

Seems a bit decadent to give a - so to speak - mental teenager a Cabrio Benz at age 16. How about a simple Pentax K 1000 for starters. You might not like photography after all ... So why waste a state of the art camera until you know what you need, want, or want not?

 

Save your money, is my advice and see and shoot pictures of merit first. You would not be in the market for a golden flute, would you, just because you have set your mind on learning to "play an instrument"? Would you? Or bid on a Stradivarius in London? Please respect that tools must be earned, not consumed ... And you talk about 1.4 lenses as if you knew what they were for, why they are so expensive etc. Sorry, but I am worried about you.

[david_h._hartman]

Bob,

 

First these are both great cameras. You will like either one you buy, I do. Well almost. I own several Nikon FE2(s) the camera the FM3a is based on. I also own an F100.

 

Manual focus v. auto focus? I�m about 70/30% in favor of manual focus. I do like AF for flash photography and my AF 35~70/2.8D Nikkor now lives on my F100. For ambient light photography I prefer fast prime AI and AIS Nikkors. In good light I�m make use of a 25~50/4.0 AIS Nikkor but I need fast primes to backup such a lens.

 

While you can shoot the F100 in manual mode and aperture preferred mode most of the people I know who own auto-everything cameras can�t set their apertures, don�t know how to use center-weighed metering, etc. They just accept what the camera gives them and shoot program, Dynamic AF mode with Closest Subject Priority, Matrix metering, etc. (Point & Shoot). I tried to help the president of a camera club once and she could not set her camera to 1/125th half way between f/5.6 and f/8.0. Probably 1/3 of the men in the club can�t do this either. When I asked if she was shooting slides or negatives she said, "I�ll just use f/8."

 

The Nikon FM3a is easily the better camera to learn with. You get full manual exposure or aperture preferred. That�s all I ever use with my F100 or F5. I reserve the right to use S & P but I just don�t. At a glance you can see how a camera like the FM3a is set. Although I make use of customer settings with the F100 and F5 I mostly set and forget them as it�s more work to keep track of how the camera is set if you use a plethora of modes and settings. It�s very important to put the AF camera away in one�s standard configuration otherwise next time you pick it up it may try to be helpful when you don�t want such help.

 

The FM3a features standard TTL flash and I don�t know anyone who advocates manual flash unless it�s a studio type multi light setup with a flash meter. The F100 offers standard TTL flash by night and balanced fill flash by day. It�s not that hard to do manual fill flash at a few standard distances with the FM3a. The F100 is far easier for this.

 

One down side for the F100 is the F100�s finder has the lowest finder magnification of any Nikon SLR I own. It�s just 0.70x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity. The FM3a is 0.83x so it�s much easier to focus on the matte filed. The FM3a does not do AF of course. I like to one hand the F100 and hold my speedlight at arms length like press photographers in the �40s and �50s with there Speed Graphics. This just is not practical with the FM3a. One camera doesn�t do it all.

 

The F100 eats batteries, it�s true. This is mostly about how long the meter is on and how much AF is used. I use continuous servo focus and the AF-ON button. The simple solution is a spare Nikon MS-12 AA Battery Holder, about $17.00. One is always loaded with Energizer L91 lithium batteries, about $8.50 per set at Wal-Mart when bought in packs of eight. The other is loaded with 2,100 mAh NiMH batteries, the latter for economy.

 

Bob, I think the best camera for you is the Nikon FM3a. You can pickup a few nice prime AIS Nikkors like a 28/2.8 (AIS only), 50/1.8 AI or AIS or 55/2.8 AIS Micro and a 105/2.5 AI or AIS. This is a fine mini-system. The lenses can be carried in a waist pack. It�s easy to change lenses while standing or even walking, no need for a third hand. You can get this or a similar lens setup on about the same budget as an F100 and a nice AF zoom, perhaps one of the f/2.8 maximum aperture zoom used.

 

Now is a great time to buy clean, even unused AI and AIS Nikkors. I just bought a mint, unused, in the box, 20/2.8 AIS Nikkor for about $100.00 less than gray and $250.00 lens than Nikon USA! Last year I bought a 135/3.5 AI, virtually unused. Still had the JCII Passed sticker on it, unblemished. The Passed sticker is on my monitor stand now. I think I paid $99.00 for the lens and I�m being vain and buying mint lenses.

 

This may sound strange but on thing I really don�t like about the F100 is the lack of a rewind knob. The FM3a has a rewind knob.

 

Anyway while I�m recommending the Nikon FM3a don�t ask me to give up my F100. The contoured grip sticks in the hand for that one hand stuff and it�s light enough for a day hike. The F100 weighs less than an F2As and more than an F3 when sporting lithium batteries.

 

Sorry about rambling. I�m procrastinating, I should be out mowing the lawn. Have fun!

 

Best,

 

Dave Hartman.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"On the F 100, simply set the light meter to be

active for 4 sec only, and your batteries (Lithium pair of AAs;

17$ for a quartet at Walmart) will last your around 50 or more 36

exposure rolls." --Frank Uhlig<br>

</em><br>

I think Frank meant per Octet (or pair of quartets). The price I

observed last Friday afternoon was $16.83~$16.98, a touch less

than $17.00 per set of eight. This caught my eye as Ive

only seen Energizer L91(s) carded in lots of four. I was there to

buy Energizer NH-15(s), 2100 mAh NiMH at $9.83. Since I bought

almost $50.00 worth of NiMH I passed up the L91(s).<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[danny_liao]

The F100 was my first camera. I loved it! It was great! But I eventually sold it for a

Hasselblad. It wasn't until I sold the AF(auto focus) camera for the MF (manual focus)

camera, that I really started LOVING photography and understanding everything about

it. When I had the AF, I didn't learn anything. Just set the camera and than point and

shoot at what ever you want to photograph...simple. When I went manual, I had to

stop and think not just about composition but also about the exposure and the

lighting situation. AF, 3D Matrix Metering, and all the nice features was a handicap

for me. Once I started learning about exposures though shooting manual cameras,

my eyes became the 3D Matrix Metering system, not the camera. If you truely want

to learn, go MF. I picked up a used Nikon FE2 (which is just as good as a FM3A) w/a

28mm AIS, 105mm AIS, and a motor drive all in like new conditon for way less than a

new FM3A body. If you are a beginner and want to learn photography, I suggest you

get a used MF set-up first and save your money for film. But if you don't care about

learning and just want to make pretty pictures, than go with the F100. Like I said

earlier, I loved my F100 but eversince I've gone MF, I never missed the AF features

again.

[paulrumohr]

I use Rayovac's 15 minute recharegables available at Best Buy and Toys R' Us in my F100.

It's $40 for the charger with 2 AAs and then $14 for 4AAs afterward.

 

�15 minute recharges

�1000 Recharges

�2000 mA (powerful)

 

Awesome performance in the F100.

[scott_warn]

I have been shooting with Nikon equipment since 1973. The range spans from the F2 to the F5.

 

Metering. Nikon meters have always given me near perfect exposures for over 90% of my shots. I wouldn't blame the poor exposures on the meter, more likely it was due to hurrying and not taking the time to get it perfect. This applies to the original 60% center weight, the F3's 75% centerweight, or the color matrix meter in the F5. Once you figure out how the meter works in extreme situations, you have to provide the final intelligence and when you don't, you get a poor exposure. What I am saying is that center weight or matrix DOESN'T MATTER. Both work perfectly to provide guidance and once you adapt to the system, it's up to you to decide how to adjust or comensate. I actually prefer using the center weighted mode on my F5 because it's easier to predict, it is a linear system with no computer algorithyms laid on top that can confuse the issue. It probably means that I am an old fart unwilling to trust a computer, so what, it also means that I get perfect exposures using the center weighted meter. That being said, having a spot meter option is a real plus because there are situations where a spot meter is the best choice. So the scale tips slightly in favor of the F100 because of the spot meter, unless you get a seperate hand held spot meter like I use with my MF and 4x5 gear. Center weighted vs matrix is a non issue because both can yield perfect exposures once you figure out how, and when, to override them, and how to choose your metering target.

 

Weight, the FM3a is lighter without a drive, heavier with a drive. So that is a toss-up.

 

Durability, another toss-up. I think that both cameras are built to the same level of durability and quality, top rank. PS, the N80 is not even close to this build level.

 

MF vs AF. This is the real issue. I started using AF because my eyes are not what they once were, in my 20's I had 20/10 vision, now it's 20/30. Twenty/thirty is till good vision but my eyes do not focus as fast as they once did, and I have trouble under about 24 inches. That does slow me down with a MF camera, I have to wait for my eyes to adjust before I can see the screen clearly. For you, eyesight is probably a non issue. What is the real issue is what cameras will you be using in 5 or 10 years. My bet is that it will be digital AND, MOST IMPORTANT, will probably lack compatibility with manual focus lenses. This means that any MF lens system you build up now may have to be completely replaced with an AF lens system in a short period of time. I went thru this in 1990 and it wasn't cheap then and it won't be cheap 10 years from now.

 

I would recomend that you go with the F100. It is just as well built as the FM3a, offers a spot meter, and any lens you buy for it will work with new models introduced for at least the next 10 years. I cannot say that this is a strong recomendation, it is more of a lean. The FM3a has many positive points and would cost a lot less, for one thing, used MF lenses are plentiful and cheap. You have a budget that you have to live with so you have to make the final decision. Right now MF will cost less, 10 years from now, the choice of the F100 will probably cost less.

[hugh_t]

This is more a question of what type of photography you plan to do. Decide that,and the answer to this question is easy. This is a classic question of different tools for different jobs.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"This is more a question of what type of photography

you plan to do. Decide that,and the answer to this question is

easy. This is a classic question of different tools for different

jobs." --Hugh T<br>

</em><br>

BE CAREFUL! <br>

<br>

I did that and end up with a Linhof Technika IV, Kardan Colour 45S,

Hasselblad 500CM and too many Nikons to count. My other car is a

beat up 1980 Volvo with 100,000 Plus Miles (160,000 Kilometers.)<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"It does all of its assigned tasks very well, and with

fast glass I think it might even surprise Yaron how well it

focusses in available light (if there's enough light to read by,

the F100 will nail it fast..." --Todd Peach<br>

</em><br>

One night I was comparing the F5 with the DW-31, 6x high

magnification finder, against its AF capability. I found the F5s

AF with telephotos and tubes deadly accurate compared or verified

with the 6x finder. Thats the electronic rangefinder v. my

eye and the 6x finder. This was under modest room light with f/4.5

and f/5.6 lenses at up to 1/2 life size so there was a loss of

about 1 stop in effective aperture. The F5 and F100 share the

same AF module.<br>

<br>

The main problem with AF is getting it to focus on what you want

it to focus on. I use the AF-ON button and disable AF at the

shutter release for this. Once I let go of the AF-ON button the

focus is locked. I lock the game pad and normally only use the

center focus spot. I prefer manual focus about 70% of the time

but AF has gotten very good.<br>

<br>

If I had to choose between a Nikon FM3a or a Nikon F100 Id

chose an F3 with MD-4 or an F5. That was naughty wasnt it?<br>

<br>

I like variety, "So Shoot Me Now!"<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[blakley]

I own both, use both, and love both.

 

For me, the tradeoffs are pretty simple. If I need AF (fast-moving subjects etc...), fast frame rate (fast moving subjects again) or flash, I use the F-100.

 

The flash capability is the real differentiator. If you want sophisticated metering, flash exposure compensation, second-curtain synch, etc..., you just won't be able to live with the limitations of the FM3a. However, I seldom use flash, so this isn't a huge deal.

 

If I don't need fast frame rate, flash, or AF, which is MOST of the time, I generally use the FM3a. The more I use the F-100, the more I realize that I really probably could get the shots I want with the FM3a without much more effort or inconvenience. (In fact, I often use a totally manual Leica M3 rather than either of the Nikons these days, but that's a totally different kettle of fish - there are definitely situations where a rangefinder like the M3 just won't do the trick, and I really do need an SLR like the FM3a.)

[blakley]

PS - I forgot a few things:

 

I've NEVER had a problem with the FM3a and f/1.4 lenses, which I use a lot (both 50 and 85mm).

 

The F100 is built like a tank; you should have no concerns about its ruggedness.

 

Finally - a non-functional point but a very important one - the FM3a has a very old-fashioned, traditional, boxy shape. It's utilitarian but not really comfortable in the hand.

 

The F-100, on the other hand, feels better in my hand than any other camera in the world. It fits like a glove. I can hold it for HOURS without getting cramps in my hand or praying for an opportunity to put it down. This is probably the real thing that keeps me coming back to it even when I don't really need all the advanced functions it offers. Your hand may differ. Pick one up and hold it for a while.

[david_sereda]

Hi Bob-

 

I have what might be considered a "poor man's version" of your choices above, owning a F75 and an FE2.

 

The F75 is great when I want to travel light, you barely notice carrying it around with a 50mm on front. The AF system, while a bit grindy, does a pretty good job of keeping up with my 1yr old daughter and her friends. It has a spot meter, but for the photos I take, I just leave it matrix all the time. Not being able to set ISO speeds is somewhat frustrating. I got the camera as a gift, otherwise I likely would have chosen an F80. But I believe this body is a bit bulkier than the F75, so if travelling light is ever important (or if your purchasing budget is tight or more focused on glass), give it a look.

 

I absolutely love my FE2, and shoot with it more and more. All the "plusses" of the FM3A apply here, as really, as Dave H. says, the FM3A is really just an updated FE2. I got a fantastic deal on it (under $200) and it must be close to mint condition.

 

Having the 2 cameras is a blast. I can decide if I am in a MF or AF "mood", portraits or action for example, and grab whichever body suits me. I often have 2 types of film in the cameras as well - NPZ in the F75, Tri-X in the FE2 right now - allowing for more flexibility. I also have a "backup" available, should something go wrong. A caveat here though - F75 and F80 for that matter will not meter with that vast majority of MF lenses, without having them "chipped". But what's a used light meter, $20 or so, if you want to use those lenses on the F75/80?

 

If I was buying again right now, and $$$ was less of an object? I'd probably pick up an F100 *and* an F3HP in nice shape. But I can't really complain, there isn't too much I can't do with the cameras I have. Furthermore, having cheaper bodies sure does free up the funds for glass and other toys!

 

Good luck with your decision making!

 

Dave

[vincetylor]

The F-100 is the one...hands down. If you really want to focus your attention on composition exclusively, then do not debate this any further. You will always have the AF for the times in which you want to use it. Kids, sports, just tired of manual focus etc. The viewfinder is very bright and you will definitely appreciate having that. I actually prefer the F-100 viewfinder to the double in price F-5. Batteries are NOT a problem. The 3-D matrix metering is also the latest and greatest in exposure technology. 4.5 frames per second is another advantage. The auto-bracketing feature is such a nice pleasure to use. The N-80 is a better second choice, but does not have the same ruggedness as the F-100. I actually had mine fall off the roof of my pickup truck onto the asphalt. While I had problems with my lens afterwards, the camera has not missed a beat. It is a professionals camera. If you can afford it, you will not second guess yourself for choosing the second best Nikon camera since they started making cameras. The F-5 is still the best...in my opinion. You can literally hammer nails with it!