bjhurley wrote:
Mostly I've seen complaints that the hybrid shutter is mechanically complex and would be more difficult to repair, but maybe that's speculation. I guess most of the criticism I've seen is that it's overhyped (i.e., you pay a lot for the hybrid shutter feature and in other respects the FM3a is not so different from some much cheaper Nikon models). The reason I bought mine was that it's the last film camera Nikon made so everything is younger and the one I bought was in mint condition.
The only reasons i sold it were that I decided I'm not an SLR shooter anymore, and even though the shutter is fairly quiet compared with some SLRs I've used it was still too loud for acoustic concerts and jam sessions (which was what I was mainly using it for), plus the exposure needle was impossible to see in low light. ...Show more →
Ah, makes sense that it'd be on the more complicated end of things. I kicked around the FM3a idea for a long time, but had to let it go when it was clear I was using the F3 (and then an M2) a lot more often than the FE.
Still love the FM/FE family, though. They're about as classic as it gets IMO.
EB-1 wrote:
What do you mean incorrect, the semi-italics? My F4 from 1988 has Nikon in a slanted sans-serif type font. It's totally correct for the era. FM3A with the smaller A is just the style.
Nikon was messed up by already having an FA and yet the camera was not an FM (manual). IMO it should have been the FE3 but they probably wanted to emphasize the hybroid shutter.
EBH
The FM3a was a retro-styled camera with no resemblance of Nikon's contemporary models when it was released in 2001. They should have used the old font that was used on the other FM/FE series bodies.
And it looks like Nikon's designers agree with that these days - both the Zf and Zfc have the old font.
nhmorgan wrote:
My only complaint is that I think the needle meter was a regression; I much prefer the FM2N meter.
What do you prefer about the FM2N meter?
Imo the match needle is one of the FM3a's most compelling selling points (+ the hybrid shutter of course)
It shows how far you're over or under compared to the meter reading, instead which I find very useful when consciously over- or underexposing a scene.
nhmorgan wrote:
Love my Fm3A. Lucked into a second body for a great price that I think has never been shot. My only complaint is that I think the needle meter was a regression; I much prefer the FM2N meter. Oh and the Logo is just wrong on the FM3A
It really is the cream of the crop for manual focus cameras.
I really like the needle! But for some reason it seems more fragile than using LEDs or LCDs.
None of Nikon’s pro level cameras used needles, apart from maybe the original F? F2 had already moved to LEDs in the metered heads, F3 brought on the era of LCDs.
I really liked my FM2n, but I thought the way it showed the exposure info was a mess. Aperture on the top. Shutter speed on the left. Exposure LEDs on the right. The info was all over the place!
Desmolicious wrote:
I really like the needle! But for some reason it seems more fragile than using LEDs or LCDs.
None of Nikon’s pro level cameras used needles, apart from maybe the original F? F2 had already moved to LEDs in the metered heads, F3 brought on the era of LCDs.
I really liked my FM2n, but I thought the way it showed the exposure info was a mess. Aperture on the top. Shutter speed on the left. Exposure LEDs on the right. The info was all over the place!
Agreed on terrible viewfinder ergonomics of the FM2, especially when combined with crap eye relief. The Leica R6 does this perfectly, with aperture, shutter speed and highly legible meter LEDS on the bottom of the frame with goldilocks magnification/eye relief specs.
The main reason I like the FM2 is the beautiful styling of the camera, especially in titanium
fjablo wrote:
What do you prefer about the FM2N meter?
Imo the match needle is one of the FM3a's most compelling selling points (+ the hybrid shutter of course)
It shows how far you're over or under compared to the meter reading, instead which I find very useful when consciously over- or underexposing a scene.
It's just a visibility thing. There are pretty frequent occasions where I just can't see the needle adequately. It's also a lot of information. I like it simply and visible in darker scenes. That just a preference, though. Once the viewfinder goes up to the eye, I really just care about exposure. My initial settings are going to be fairly close. FM2N has: -, - o, o, o+, + . That's 2/3rds of a stop in either direction, which is plenty for me.
IMO people stress too much about metering on film cameras. Almost no-one is shooting slide film these days. As long as you don’t point the meter at the sky or an unreasonably bright part of the scene the metering will be good enough with negative film. It is better to err on the side of over exposure by pointing the meter towards darker parts of the scene..
I have a quite a collection of film cameras and I am sure the metering and shutter speed accuracy is *variable*. I always check the negs when they come back and they always show a good range of contrast. What you don’t want to see is ‘thin’ rendering of the negative (no dark greys or black in any part) as this indicates under exposure.
(+ the hybrid shutter of course)