Nikon FM-2 Users?

I've wanted a Nikon FM-2n manual camera for some time, and am vacillating over whether to try to put together the money for a body (I have a suitable lens) or just put the money into a digital SLR. Don't figure the digital will last as long...

Anyone here have an FM-2, and what do you think of it? All that I read seems very positive. Apparently, even many pros keep one on hand in case a more high-tech camera falters. The battery powers only the meter. It'll work with a dead battery, if you can guess exposures well.

I know that it's manual only, but that makes it less complicated; less to go wrong. And I learned photography on manual cameras. I love my Olympus OM-1! It's a great classic.

But I do sort of crave an FM-2. And if I sell photos for articles taken with it, I should be able to take some of the cost off of my taxes.

What are FM-2n bodies going for, in Excellent to New condition? Anyone seen any lately, or checked price lists? Wikipedia says that the body was last made in 2001.

Thanks.

I have a FE and a FM along with several other Nikons, including the high end professonal digital models. All are great cameras, especially if you use the Nikkor lens. I use my cameras to make photos displayed as evidence in courts. For many, many years, I used the FE and FM cameras. They can be found for less than $200. I saw a really clean one a few weeks back for $125.

Would I get rid of mine? Nope. Have not used one in about a year and that was just to play with it.

Would I go for digital? Yes, without a doubt. There are too many advantages to using a digital camera. Less cost in developing, printing and such is the main reason.

A person can buy a nice Nikon that will shoot far better photos, or at least as good, than the FE, FM or F4 did.

You can also find a good D1 on eBay for about $400. They were selling for about $5000 a few years back. It is a great professional camera and many have been used only in studio work. This is the direction I would go unless you can write off the purchase as a business expense.

I have the FE-2 with a Nikkor 28 mm f2.8 and a Nikkor 35-105 mm F3.5. a very good camera but I haven't used it in years and with all of the digital cameras out there it ain't worth very much.

will these old lens (not auto focus) work on the new digital cameras?

I have an FM2 also, and used it when I was in the Detective Bureau for taking crime & accident scene photos. I have several lenses for it and it works great.

All Nikon lenses will mount on the digital bodies. Depending on the contacts on the back of the mount, it will determine how the lens interfaces with the camera. This affects auto exposure, lens opening, etc.

I have two Nikon Fs, a Nikon FM2, two Hasselblads, a Omega Rapid, and a Nikon D200.

I used the FM2 when I started my portrait business. It is very reliable and rugged. It differs from the FM mainly in that it will flash synch at a higher shutter speed (1/250), which is very handy when you want to flash-fill on a bright day and you don't want to use a small f-stop.

I really never used the metering system as I always used a hand held incident light meter.

I recommend this camera.

(I wanted an F-3, but it was too expensive.)

Note: I am not an equipment freak, so I am not a really good source of information on hardware, but I am a good source of information on photo portraiture (available light and studio light).

Regards,

Packard

I've only used one Nikon in my life, I don't remember what model it was, but it wasn't manual, so I can't help you with your FM-2 questions.

But I do like your way of thinking on the manual camera for a backup. My favorite camera is a Pentax ME Super, it can be used without batteries, but has limitations. I always wanted to find a nice cheap K1000 for a second camera or back-up that would take the same lenses, but never found one cheap enough. I did find a great deal on a used Pentax ZX-50, but I hate that camera. Anyway, a couple years ago my son comes over with a Sears T L S body he'd bought for $5 at a yard sale. It needed a thread on lens, which I happened to have one, and the light meter didn't work properly. He lost interest at that point and gave it to me for my camera box. Out of curiosity I loaded it up and took it out with my Sekonic ambient light meter and shot a roll of film. Wow! Now I really wish I'd had that K1000 when I was more active in the hobby.

Jellybean said:

I've only used one Nikon in my life, I don't remember what model it was, but it wasn't manual, so I can't help you with your FM-2 questions.

But I do like your way of thinking on the manual camera for a backup. My favorite camera is a Pentax ME Super, it can be used without batteries, but has limitations. I always wanted to find a nice cheap K1000 for a second camera or back-up that would take the same lenses, but never found one cheap enough. I did find a great deal on a used Pentax ZX-50, but I hate that camera. Anyway, a couple years ago my son comes over with a Sears T L S body he'd bought for $5 at a yard sale. It needed a thread on lens, which I happened to have one, and the light meter didn't work properly. He lost interest at that point and gave it to me for my camera box. Out of curiosity I loaded it up and took it out with my Sekonic ambient light meter and shot a roll of film. Wow! Now I really wish I'd had that K1000 when I was more active in the hobby.

Click to expand...

I recall the K-1000 Pentax as being a good entry level SLR at a modest price. I'm not surprised that you like it. I just preferred the Olympus OM-1. I have one and and a OM-1n. They're very well made and still going. The meters are dead, though, and I can't find the right batteries for them, anyway.

I also bought one of the Yashica T-4 Super mini cameras that has a retracting Zeiss lens. I suspect that Kyocera built it under license in Japan to Zeiss standards. Takes very sharp pics. In fact, I need to load it and get ready to meet my daughter and her family for dinner out tonight after I run some errands. I want some photos of the grandkids. It has a built-in flash that works well.

One thing I've liked most about film photography is how we finally got good high speed films. I often shoot Fuji 800 ISO to give me an edge if it gets a little dark or overcast.

Oh: when I took a basic photo course in college (I was a Journalism major and had to take it), they issued YashicaMat double lens reflex cameras. They took 2 and a quarter size film. Took good photos, but the 35mm SLR was much more convenient.

steveno said:

I have the FE-2 with a Nikkor 28 mm f2.8 and a Nikkor 35-105 mm F3.5. a very good camera but I haven't used it in years and with all of the digital cameras out there it ain't worth very much.

will these old lens (not auto focus) work on the new digital cameras?

Click to expand...

To a great extent, IT DEPENDS. While these lenses will mount on the low end Nikon DSLR's you won't have any functional light meter. Basically, you'll have to set the camera to manual exposure, select a shutter speed on the camera and the aperture on the lens, then take a picture and look to see how good your exposure guestimate was.

Now, if you want to pony up about 1800 bucks for a D300S the story changes. Because the Pro level Nikon digitals still have the coupling mechanism for the aperture ring on the older Nikkors. With these cameras you pre-program the maximum aperture for the lens(es) you plan to use and select that particular program when you mount the lens. Once you've done that, you have full metering capability in the A, and M modes. The only caveat is that any lens used must conform to the Nikon AI lens mount, the older lenses that used the old rabbit ear won't couple to the AI indexing ring and these old lenses can break that indexing ring if all you do is mount the lens. It's why I took the time to convert all my older Nikkors to the AI standard in the 80's. One of the finest 50mm lenses ever made was the 50mm f2 Nikkor H which predated the AI standard by about 20 years, however by installing a conversion AI aperture ring when they were available means I can use that lens on one of my Nikon F FTn's or on my D300. Yeah, I've been around Nikons for a lot of years.

WARNING, any older Nikon lens you want to use on a newer digital MUST be FULLY COMPLIANT to the Nikon AI specification. Back in the early 80's there were a lot of users who were carving their aperture rings to allow them to work with the AI metering system. Unfortunately, they didn't take the time to shape the aperture ring for the F2's DS-12 auto aperture servo drive tab and that particular feature was used to sense minimum aperture status on the D70 and digitals of a similar vintage. As a result, AI modified lenses would snap that pickup tab on the D70's, D1, and D2's when the user simply mounted the lens. I have no idea if the D3000 and later AFS digitals have features that can be damaged by the older Nikkor's but I would urge caution when considering trying an older lens on a newer camera.

Now, one tip for identifying if a Nikkor is fully AI compliant and it's a sure bet tip. Look on the aperture ring for 2 seperate parallel sets of ENGRAVED aperture numbers. Note, a paper label doesn't count, those numbers MUST be engraved. If you see 2 sets of numbers, the lens WILL be fully AI compliant. BTW, that second row was used on some Pro Models from the F3 up to the F5 to display the aperture in the viewfinder and Nikon enforced having this second row of numbers engraved even for the aftermarket lens makers. Also note, the older AF Nikkors that feature an aperture ring on the lens will also have this second row of aperture numbers because all those lenses were also fully AI compliant.

Now for a final note on AF Nikkors versus AFS Nikkors. The original Nikon autofocus camera used a motor in the body to drive the lens focusing via a slotted drive coupling in the lens mount. Because these lenses predated body control of the lens aperture by a good number of years the AF Nikkors can be quickly identified by their having an aperture ring on the rear of the lens. The more recent AFS Nikkors do NOT have an aperture ring on the lens and the camera body controls the lens aperture. In addition, they have a motor in the lens to drive the focus. Why this is important is that the AF Nikkors will not autofocus on the newer consumer Nikon's and the lens can ONLY be used in the A or P modes IIRC. As for the AFS Nikkors, they won't autofocus on a screw drive body and they can only be used at the minimum aperture (f22) on camera bodies that predate the F5 because there is no means to control the lens aperture.

Bascially, when mixing generations of cameras and lenses you really need to be aware of the changes over the years and MAKE SURE YOU READ THE MANUAL FOR YOUR CAMERA. Because if you take an "it'll fit" approach without knowing the risk, you face a very real risk that you may BREAK YOUR CAMERA.

PS; I started out in the Nikon line with a used 25 dollar Nikkormat FS that had been a Press camera and it looked like it had spent some time driving nails. However, that old non metered FS still works perfectly today. Later on it was an F FTn Photomic, a brace of F2SB's, then an N8008, F5, D70, and finally what may be the last Nikon I buy, the D300. Until Nikon started implementing the AFS system around 2003 or 4, I had the ability to use every single one of my lenses on any of those proceeding models, because I took the time over the years to do the AI conversions and also took the time to mount rabbit ears on my later lenses so they retained metering function on the older vintage Nikons. I'm still a bit peeved about Nikon dropping the aperture ring but to be honest about the only camera I use today is the D300, it's a great camera and with Kodachrome in the History books it also produces better image quality than any film still being made.

my lens are the A1. it seems like it might be more trouble than the FE-2 and lens than they are worth but I kind figured that might be the case

I got into photography many years ago with an Olympus OM-2S. It was a wonderful camera, with spot metering. I'd probably still have it but unfortunately, my apartment in a not-so-nice area out east was broken into while I was at work. They stole the camera, lens, etc.

After saving some money, I decided to go with Nikon system, since my dad had purchased an FM2 and I wanted to share experiences on techniques and accessories with him. I decided to buy an FE2. If I recall, the main difference between the two was the availability of an aperture-priority Auto(matic) mode in my FE2. I figured it was worth the extra cost to be able to shoot faster when the situation warranted it, by simply adjusting the aperture and having the camera decide on the shutter speed. There could have been a difference in fastest shutter speeds as well. The FE2 has a 1/4000 second speed, but I seem to recall (not sure now) that his FM2 only went down to 1/2000.

My actual experience was that most of my photographs turned out better with manual adjustments than with automatic, so in most situations, an FM2 would have sufficed. One exception was fireworks in the night sky; I just couldn't get the correct manual exposure but had many wonderful photos taken under automatic mode.

My dad's FM2's meter eventually went kaput, probably because he lives in a high humidity saltwater environment. My FE2 is still fully functional. It has manual mode as well as mechanical shutter (1/250 second and Bulb) so if the electronics ever go out, I can still use it. I've since bought some additional AI lenses and Nikon flash that would be somewhat compatible in my move to Nikon digital SLR. I do have a point-and-shoot and zoom digital camera but nothing as functional as Digital Single Lens Reflex.

My main concern about digital photography is the longevity of the various formats. Back in the film era, photos had to be printed in order to be shared and viewed. I can still view recently discovered ancestral photos from over a century ago. Decades from now, my descendants will be able to see my prints and slides. My negatives would be more difficult without conversion from negative image to positive image. I do have such hardware/software to convert negatives into current digital formats, but such technology may no longer be supported years from now.

Even antique prints and slides can be still viewed by humans and scanned into current digital formats, but the opposite will not be true.

In this digital age, a very small percentage of images is actually printed. Just a few years from now, many of these images will be erased (lost), no longer decipherable (incompatible format), or no longer accessible due to being stored in a medium that's no longer used.

An organization that I'm a member of decided to bury another time capsule to replace the one from 25 years ago that they had recently unearthed. Their plan was to store a USB stick containing digital images. I advised them to print the photos and store them in a sealed container instead. 25 years from now, what are the chances that a USB stick can still be plugged in, and a .jpeg or raw format (name your format) file can still be rendered into an image?

I'm not against digital as I use the technology. However, if you want to ensure that your images can still be viewed years from now, print them or ensure that the digital files are converted as new formats take over. I haven't kept up with photographic printing technologies, but I assume that storing prints in a dark, cool, dry environment will make them last.

I had an FM2 and an FE2 and they both served me well. I was forced into the digital age by wedding customers wanting everything done digitally. I have a F100 with battery grip that is just the most awesome camera I have ever owned, and it just sits on my shelf now. If anyone is interested in that camera we could do some trading I'm sure. I now shoot a D200 and process all my work on computer. I miss the days of film some, but I wish the digital had come along twenty years earlier. Each type is a tool unto it's self, and very useful in the photography world.

My background is portraiture. Film still renders skin tone better than digital does. And by and large you can make larger prints from a properly exposed negative than you can from digial output.

Also, archiving film, while it requires more space, so far has proven to be more stable than archiving digital. I wonder if 50 years from now we will be able to watch movies made in 2012. We have no problem doing so now with movies made in 1962.

And that was a step down from from Technicolor which was last used for Gone With the Wind. Technicolor is shot on black and white film and projected with color filters in place. By far the best color, definition, and archivablity of any film choices.

Packard said:

My background is portraiture. Film still renders skin tone better than digital does. And by and large you can make larger prints from a properly exposed negative than you can from digial output.

Also, archiving film, while it requires more space, so far has proven to be more stable than archiving digital. I wonder if 50 years from now we will be able to watch movies made in 2012. We have no problem doing so now with movies made in 1962.

And that was a step down from from Technicolor which was last used for Gone With the Wind. Technicolor is shot on black and white film and projected with color filters in place. By far the best color, definition, and archivablity of any film choices.

Click to expand...

Do you think that Kodak film renders Anglo skin tones better than Fuji film, while the latter handles greens and blues better? I've read that. I think there may be someting to it.