mark_crown4

<p>Well, well. This is timely for me.</p> <p>As the owner of an FM3a (from new), an FE and FM2N and a D40 I have recently come to the conclusion that I am going to have to call it a day with film. I love all these cameras but the blown highlights on the D40 do make me sad!</p> <p>Why? Well, I can still get rolls of Velvia 50 and 100 under a tenner (around 2004 I could get E6 for £4 per roll - salad days!). However, thanks to the privatisation of the Royal Mail, postage prices have gone up so this makes processing more expensive. Postage has gone up 3 quid; processing £1.50 - £2.00. Currently I'm working on £11.50 per roll for development and mounting (E6) or also slightly more for Ilford's B&W service and that is for 24 exposures only.</p> <p>I'm running out of room for my slides. My wages are static but costs are going up. I can no longer click away caught in the moment as I worry too much about wasting shots. As I have to use my film camera less to keep costs down, I find that I am also beginning to make more mistakes with exposure as maybe I'm not as au fait with the Nikons as I used to be.</p> <p>The current plan is to flog the FM3a and the FE (plus my 50-135mm and 25-50mm Nikkor zooms plus some others) to raise around £300+ for a brand new but out of date D7000.</p> <p>I'm not bothered that the D7000 is out of date because its not about equipment for me. It's about seeing a certain kind of light or form and engrossing oneself in capturing it with the camera until you are happy. </p> <p>At least with the D7000 I can still use my favourite AIS lenses (20mm 3.5; 24mm 2.8; 28mm f2; 50mm 1.4; 50mm 1.8S; 55mm 2.8; 105mm 2.5 & 180mm 2.8) plus my DX 18-55mm II, 55-200mm VR, 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 AFS.</p> <p>I have to say though that I'd rather it be that things were not this way. But there you go. At least this transition to digital may help me to loose myself in my hobby and not feel that I am denying my family other things that they need. It's as simple as that for me unfortunately.</p>

<p>I use my Nikkor 28mm f2 Ai on my FM3a/FM2N.</p> <p>It is a wonderful lens even close up and also very resistant to flare. It is also shaper in the corners at distance than the 28mm 2.8 AIS which I had and sold. I do not see any difference close up at all. The 28mm 2.8 AIS is not so sure footed when dealing with contre jour light - it does have a tendency to flare more that the F2 28mm. <br> Mark</p>

<p>I have a chrome FE along with my FM2N and an FM3a. I love it. I also had it serviced when I bought it for £34 in 2005. It has the B2 screen. All I would say is that the viewfinder is not as bright as its younger relatives and you can only compensate exposure in half stops (the FM3a does 3rd stops - ideal for popping colour on slide film). I'd love a black one.</p> <p>Other than those very small caveats, it is a great camera with great metering and an exposure lock. The only other thing to look out for is to not the leave the winder lever out (revealing the red dot on the top plate) as you will drain the battery. Mine is always filled with 400 ASA B&W film to capture my rapidly growing children.</p>

<p>Iosif</p> <p>I've always preferred a warming filter on my E6 film as otherwise they all look too blue for me (the worst at this is Provia 100 IMO). The way we want our pictures to look is a very subjective area for every photographer. </p> <p>This is what makes photography so interesting - the variety of approaches and tastes. I've recently used my last roll of 35mm Velvia 100f - a film that could be used in very contrasty lighting situations more successfully than Velvia 50. </p> <p>But this is just my interpretation. I'm not stating it as a 'universal truth'. I mostly shoot landscapes and choose early mornings and late evenings and enhance the warmth in the sky at these times. It is personal taste.</p> <p>The filters I use have a visible effect on the scene that I notice.</p>

<p>Hi Iosif</p> <p>If you mean me, then I always use a Moose Petersen warming polariser with Velvia 100 and always ensure that the sun is to the left or right of the image. The result is very VS-like. Failing that, I use Hitech 85 grey grads that also have an 81B warming tone (combined grey grad/warming filters) of either 0.3, 0.6 or 0.9 density to control the richness of the sky. With either the Kodak or Velvia emulsions, I always get lovely results from the Hitechs in fact I prefer the warm-toned grey grads to the Petersen polariser but sometimes the grads are not practical.</p> <p>I seldom use a polariser with Velvia 50 - it's just too much, but it works fine with the graduated filters. I cannot post a picture because as yet I do not have a scanner. Sorry.</p> <p>Mark</p>

<p>I had a T4 and put Kodak EBX100 through it on a regular basis - the metering was amazing and I got loads of perfectly exposed shots from this little marvel of a camera but I sold it to fund another Nikkor lens (a 180mm 2.8 AIS).</p>

<p>Well, well.............</p> <p>All this thread has done is make me pine for Kodak 100VS or EBX. I really miss both of them. VS was a great film for bad weather - it certainly warmed up autumnal colours in overcast conditions and the 100asa rating meant that it was easier to work with in such conditions than Velvia 50 when handholding the camera. Another thing about both Kodak emulsions was that they recorded whites as pure white. For now I use Velvia 50 and 100 - the latter is much better when used through a warming filter/polariser combo and I always use a warming filter with Velvia 50. I made some great photo's with the last of my VS/EBX last year. Happy days!</p> <p>But long may Velvia 50 and 100 continue!</p>

<p>Hi Christian</p> <p>I'm surprised a certain Mr Bayer hasn't piped up concerning this issue as he uses his FM3a to earn money I believe. As for me, having been an owner of an FM3a since 2002, all I can say is that I've not had a problem with it at all. I am of course a hobbyist, not a pro. I also have an FE and an FM2N.</p> <p>I prefer the FM3a because its (1) newer,(2) very fast in actual use (like the FE), (3) has a very bright focussing screen, (4) has no silly fiddly lock on the film back unlike the FM2N and FE so you can get a fresh roll in very quickly. The FE is slower because the focussing screen is murky compared to newer cameras and my eyesight is not improving with age.</p> <p>The FM2N is a much slower camera than the murky FE to use IMHO, you need to manually adjust the controls (shutter & aperture).</p> <p>So, for me, on a do or die photographic mission, I would take the FM3a where I was photographing on the street, amongst people etc., but any of them would do for landscape or architectural work.</p> <p>So it is a question of context for me - what is the mission? I have found all these cameras very reliable and robust. I just wish that the FM series had a 100% viewfinder that is all.</p> <p>Do not forget that the FM3a does not need batteries to use all of its shutter speeds - it can become an FM2N without a meter if the batteries run out.</p> <p>Mark Crown<br> Derbyshire<br> United Kingdom</p>

<p>As a committed E6 film user ( I also use Nikon & Canon digital plus B&W film) all I can say is that it is getting more expensive to use film. In the early 2000's I was able to get developed and mounted E6 for as little £4 per roll. Now I have to shop around to get it at £10.00 for one roll. I have not used colour print film since 2000. Print film costs are also up - but less worthy of it IMHO.</p> <p>E6 Film is also going up in price too and I try to buy for as little as £10 per roll. Above that, it seems a bit difficult to for me so I shop around as often as I can and get short-dated film stock that I then freeze. I am not a commercial photographer but I can understand why digital makes sense for those who need to make a living. But for someone like me (a hobbyist) who likes E6 film for the experience and the look, it makes sense to keep going for as long as I can because it gives me pleasure. I don't smoke, do hard drugs or go to the pub, or frequent lap dancing establishments so I need at least one vice in my life!!</p> <p>As a hobbyist therefore, I have cut down to using one roll per month - even 2 months - to keep the cost reasonable (especially when one considers the wage stagnation currently taking place). If the likes of Fuji can amend their production of E6 for a slower market, then I don't see why film (E6 film) should go. They could still make enough to meet slower demand. However, in a business world dominated by shareholder returns, even this may be unattractive and unrealistic.</p> <p>It will be a sad day when/if E6 disappears. I will then set out to become a B&W photographer with a vengence - the success of which has eluded for some time! But a challenge keeps us going eh? And I will not be using colour print film - period.</p> <p>I recently changed labs to save me £4.50 per roll and it has worked out OK except that the turnaround times are longer. I contacted this lab because I was concerned that a film had been lost. Well, it turns out that they've had it for a week but they are holding back until they have enough on order to do a development run on E6. The turnaround time will be a week or just over rather than a day at my old lab. Obviously, this is to do with business economics - why initiate a process for just one film? If this means that E6 survives, then that is not too high a price to pay for a hobbyist photographer to keep doing what he or she loves. Again though, it might not do for a commercial photographer. I'm willing to wait longer to have what I want.</p> <p>So maybe that is the key - that the film makers and developers can adjust to a lower and slower market for their wares and that is where the sustainability will be? Producing too much of something is where the problem is - that is where waste occurs. The savvy companies will adjust and also make the most of a much reduced market.</p> <p>Who knows!!? Anyhow - I 've just got some fantastic light come through a storm here in Derbyshire, England which would be a fitting end for my last roll of Fuji Velvia 100F in my Nikon FM3a. See you later!</p> <p>Mark</p>

<p>As others above have said, this has been a really interesting thread.</p> <p>I've never really been into the 85mm focal length, preferring an Ai 105mm 2.5 instead from which I have got some wonderful images. The 105 is a deservedly 'legendary' lens.</p> <p>I too have lusted over a 35mm 1.4 but never found one at the right price. I soon gave up on 35mm focal length when I realised that it is never wide enough for me. I once had the 'legendary' AIS 28mm 2.8, but found it to be a bit soft in the corners (so, so sharp in the centre though). So, I got a 28mm f2 Ai that I feel is a more balanced lens for landscapes as it is consistently sharp well into the corners. It is also excellent with the sun in the image whereas I've had really bad flare with the AIS 28mm 2.8.</p> <p>I have the 35mm 1.8 DX - a lovely little lens which I use on my D40.</p> <p>I've also had the really good 75-150mm E zoom too, but prefer the 50-135 Ais - this is truly and amazing lens at all apertures, it's only fault being that it does not cope with strong, direct light sources in the scene and flares badly. Other than that, its is VERY sharp.</p>

<p>How about this one:</p> <p>"Expose for the shadows and let the highlights take of themselves"</p> <p>Or was it the other way around?</p>

<p>Hi Owen</p> <p>I own an FM3a. FM2n and an FE. I also own a D40.</p> <p>I think that Shun makes some sensible points - only you can decide if it's worth you buying an FM3a - how much money do you want for any perceived utility over another design?</p> <p>I bought my FM3a in 2003 for the princely sum of £525.00 from Grays of Westminster in London brand new. It was my first Nikon moving on from Olympus OM kit. When I got it, I must have spent an hour or more just looking at it on my desk.</p> <p>I then got a second hand FE for £50 of eBay in 2005. Also, off eBay I later got (in 2009) a FM2n (black) in superb condition for £104. It came with a 50mm Nikkor (the small version that focuses down to 0.60 m). I sold this for £55 - so my fine late serial number FM2n really cost me £49!! It's perfect!</p> <p><strong>Deployment</strong></p> <p>I use the FE for B&W work - it's on auto all the time. The only thing against it is that by modern standards of the FM2n/FM3a, the viewfinder is a bit murky. It has an endearing shutter mechanism but is quick and responsive when out hiking taking pictures on the hoof Galen Rowell style.</p> <p>The FM2n is a different beast altogether and I alternate it between B&W and colour slide film but lately put more of the latter through. The FM2n is a more tactile camera - you have to manipulate the shutter dial and aperture of the lens to take a successful picture. The meter is great but balancing the small dots in the viewfinder can lead to inconsistent results. I call it my tripod camera - it is slower to use and I love the engineering of the thing as much as taking photos. To think I spent the 90's as a poor student lusting after one of these when they where £400 plus quid a pop!!</p> <p><strong>The FM3a Experience & Deployment</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong><br /></strong>I use the FM3a for colour slide work. The meter is always set 1/3 of a stop underexposed and I often used grey/warm tone grads on this set up. If I use a polariser, I revert to nil compensation. Like the FE, the FM3a is quick and responsive but the brighter focussing screen is superb and gives it an edge ( I hear that the FE2 focussing screen is bright too). The meter - even set up by me above - has never let me down. Like the FE it also has an exposure lock that I use often. Macro work is a breeze because of the viewfinder (I'm the sort of person who puts his 50mm 1.4 on his PK13 extension tube to 'see what happens'!!).</p> <p>Unlike the other FXX cameras, the FM3a does not have the safety lock on the film spool door so it is less fiddly and easier to change film quickly. It is a very quite camera - the shutter mechanism (I always use it on auto, never manual) is very smooth. </p> <p>The other thing to say is that an FM3a will also be a much younger camera than an FE, FE2, FM/FM2/FM2n.</p> <p>I've seen a lot variation in the prices of FM3as so if you want one, keep looking. I'd highly recommend one, even if we are in the golden years of film, it would be a great analogue camera to see out film (especially slide film) if you got one that had no issues.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I use 35mm slide film with a Nikon FM3a and FM2n cameras (I use an FE for B&W) with a selection of Ai/AIS lenses.</p> <p>I also have a D40 with the 3 DX lenses (18-55mm, 55-200mm and 35mm 1.8) and a 50mm 1.8 AFS. I love the little thing.</p> <p><strong>The Recent Past</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> I used to love Kodak slide (100VS,100 EBX and 100EP) but they've all gone. My favourite Fuji was Velvia 100F but that too is now gone (I'm down to my last 2 frozen rolls). I've always used Velvia 50 and like to use Velvia 100 but only with a warming polariser. It's a bolder version of Provia which I have never been keen on.<br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>Surviving in E6</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> I get charged £7.50 (pounds a roll now for developing (it cost as little as 4 quid when I started in the early 2000's). The worst thing lately is that the Royal Mail doubled mailing costs so the whole process costs me now £11.50 per roll. This means a roll of E6 once every 2 months for processing. The downside is that because I'm taking longer to finish rolls I'm also doing less film photography and therefore you need to work more slowly so as to remember certain techniques with obtaining correct exposure so as not to get any bad shots and waste money.</p> <p>I can get rolls of slide film under £10 pounds or look for stuff that is just going out of date. However, as it creeps up in cost, there will obviously be a cut off point. I can't stand colour print film - having tried Ektar it just does't work for me - it's plain ugly. I will more likely end up using B&W print - Ilford FP4 and Kodak TRi-X 400 are my favourites.</p> <p><strong>Why I still use Slide Film?</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> I photograph landscapes and gardens with E6<br> <strong><br /></strong>I'm not saying that I'm a Joe Cornish or Galen Rowell but a well exposed slide still knocks my socks off. I have a display cabinet on my wall where the most recent slides are put and when I turn it on, people get out the loupe and have a look and are amazed at these little jewels of plastic that have somehow trapped the light at a location and preserved it. Some of my shots have a 3D like quality which you just do not get on digital. I also love the way slide film captures highlights if it is managed with exposure and filtration. Digital still has problems in that area. Also, I perceive a depth of colour with E6 that is just is not there in digital - even when you make prints. I have no desire to sit at a PC and alter RAW files or JPEGs - I spend enough time working on PCs, let only having a hobby on one.</p> <p>So that's why - I love the medium and wished I'd got the money to go larger. I also harbour the idea that one day I will scan the slides and sell them as pictures to supplement my retirement.</p> <p>I do have an E6 exit strategy which would involve me liquidating my lovely MF lenses and getting a higher end DX camera. I try not to think about that too often at the moment, so when I get out the Nikons I really focus on enjoying what time we spend together and getting the best pictures that I can.</p> <p>Mark Crown<br> Derbyshire<br> England</p>