Only thing is the F3 is dependent on battery, and if we want Nikon to keep making/supporting film cameras, we have to buy them. Compared to a Leica etc, the FM3A is really a bargain.
Originally Posted by waynecrider
The FM3a (and FM2n which is what I have) also has a higher flash sync speed than the F3. I always thought I wanted a F3, but after doing the research I decided the FM2n would serve my purposes better. I still want a F3; it's a heck of a camera.
Nice plan, especially wonderful lenses choices as they are the best of what Nikon makes based on all the speculation and chatter I've heard. Of course finding a 28/1.4 is the hard thing; the 105/2 is a bargain.
But I wouldn't be too quick to bash Leicas. I've tried several back and forth over the years, and the M6 and 35 Summilux ASPH I once owned was the gold standard. That lens (expensive as hell) is simply amazing. I have a beautiful 30x40 print from it, and it what I compare everything short of 4x5 to. It really is worth the money, all the Leica BS aside, you should try it.
But by all means buy a new FM3 instead of a used F3. The F3 is great (get the eyelevel, not the HP, if you don't wear glasses - the eyelevel is actually easier to see) but we need to buy NEW cameras to keep the manufacturers making them.
I am disappointed with most of the plastic AF Nikon and Canon lenses. Their best lenses were all made long ago, unless you like $1500 fat heavy zooms. It's digusting that they can't package a few fast simple prime lens designs in a professional AF mount.
And finally, I just got the D2X, while thinking the D70 would serve as backup. No way. The D2X is so fricking nice that the D70 - which is a great camera on its own - looks like dogdoo in comparison. I had it listed within the hour.
It's not the resolution (although I don't mind having more) but the overall responsiveness and crispness of the modern D2X. I think the F6 film body would be similar - the auto-focus is just so good and so fast that it makes everything else feel like crap. I used to hate AF - now I see that it helps me make shots I never could have gotten with manual or zone focusing a Leica.
Bottomline - if you are going to use those wide aperture lenses like the 28/1.4 and 105/2 - do you really want to tie yourself to manual focus or zone focusing? Or the crippled, weak AF of a consumer body like a D70? Neither will get the job done right. You need a really good AF system to exploit the power of these lenses (shooting wide open, with perfect focus).
If I jsut counterdicted myself three or four times above, please understand I am in gear-techno-nirvana and have had a few drinks to boot.
Great choice the FM3a and especially the 45mm pancake, the old tessar design will work wonders with Tri-x B&W filmbut Kodachrome 64 will come out beatifully as well....
I'm not sure at this point
FM3a is a great camera, but I would not trade it for Leica. But my opinion only, of course. The points - Leica is quieter, with better optics and more stable without mirror moving. And the big view in rangefinder is another plus. Main disatvantage / harder to focus.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Far be it for me to knock Leica - I love them dearly and my desire to won one is probably unhealthy in its proportions...
The F3's have very bright, 100% coverage viewfinders - one of their best features. Also, changeable screens to suit your focusing needs.
And there are more than a few Nikkor lenses that I challange anyone to imperically prove inferior to their Leica equivalents, awesome as those are.
Their film advance is like a swiss watch. They are an SLR. They have mirrors. They all do that, SLR's... with their silly mirrors and such... but at least you have MLU if it bothers you so much.
There is no substitute for a rangefinder, and a Leica is pretty much the gold standard in that field. But there is also no substitute for a good SLR - and the F3 is one of the greats!
Comparing a Leica RF to a Nikon SLR is a bit apple-orangy in nature. I doubt the Lieca SLR's have much of an edge on the Nikons when you look at it very objectively.
And I am a Canon guy...
PS What is easier (and quicker) to focus than a rangefinder??? Me confused now... me go sleep.
Im not knocking Leica, they are great. BUT, my particular one wasnt.. and the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH costs a bomb and the pre-asph I had didnt perform.
Then there is the fact that Leica is bankrupt, their rescue plan has been stalled due to legal action from shareholders, and even if they get passed this, the lens to film plane distance is so short that even a 1.5 crop sensor has vignetting and colour shift issues (i.e. RD1). So if and when I want/need to change to digital, the expensive 35mm lux asph becomes a >50mm lens compromised by a less than optimal digital solutiogn.
Given the above, I didn't feel investing in a new MP and 35mm f/1.4 was a wise long term investment, and in my situation, I cant afford to throw that much money to the wind. This, might be different for others.
I wish and hope Leica will suceed.
only a note - coverage of FM3a viewfinder is less then 100%
Originally Posted by gnashings
I was under the impression that we were talking about the F3 in this thread - sorry if I misunderstood.