Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,852   Online: 847
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    I don't understand why Nikon made the FM3a so unnecessarily old fashoned looking?

  2. #12
    Rombo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Slovenia, EU
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    3
    Nikon FM3a is one of the best cameras for me in 35 mm. If You get one, and if You will not like it (I doubt), sell it, and You probably will not lost a lot of money.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    I'm seriously after one now. As for the look - that's something I like about it!

  4. #14
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk
    I don't understand why Nikon made the FM3a so unnecessarily old fashoned looking?
    For us oldies, the FM3a has the same feel as the classic Nikons from the F onwards. I can appreciate that the F4/5/6 are great cameras but they seem to be bulkier than any 35 mm camera has the right to be!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    291
    Images
    10
    I recently bought one on ebay with a 45mm lens for £350 , its not a lot of money for something which I hope will out last me, I'm 47 but feeling 25 in the head, so that means its got to last at least 50 years, well maybe 23 if I make the 3 score and ten.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
    For us oldies, the FM3a has the same feel as the classic Nikons from the F onwards. I can appreciate that the F4/5/6 are great cameras but they seem to be bulkier than any 35 mm camera has the right to be!
    I'm not saying Nikon were wrong to make such a camera but they did seem to make an effort to make it look old school, just because its MF and Manual film advance shouldn't mean it should look like it was made in the 70's look at the OM2000 for example.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk
    I'm not saying Nikon were wrong to make such a camera but they did seem to make an effort to make it look old school, just because its MF and Manual film advance shouldn't mean it should look like it was made in the 70's look at the OM2000 for example.
    That is the reason why the FM3a is worth a whole lot more than the Olympus OM2000. That is what the intended customers want. I think it looks very nice. I want one for the look alone.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk
    I'm not saying Nikon were wrong to make such a camera but they did seem to make an effort to make it look old school, just because its MF and Manual film advance shouldn't mean it should look like it was made in the 70's look at the OM2000 for example.
    I don't think it is so much of a styling decision as a choice of efficiency. They already had the tooling for decades from the FM and FE lines. Very simple to not do any styling, and leave the development expenses to the electro-mechanical construction. I think that Nikon could not have expected many sales, so why put more money in styling. Even if they had made it look modern the reality is that it was introduced as a manual focus and manual film advance camera body in a world full of autofocus and motordrives.

    Sure, it looks old school or retro, but I don't think that is a bad thing. When I compare an FM3A to the previous versions, I find the best and strongest feeling with the original FM and FE; then the FE2 and FM2 seem slightly less rugged . . . all these are durable cameras, but modernizing or cost cutting changed the feel. It would still take some abusive behavior to damage any version.

    Ciao!

    Gordon

    P.S. - Thanks to all for this discussion. I enjoy this series of cameras.

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,380
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven
    I don't think it is so much of a styling decision as a choice of efficiency.
    I think styling did enter into this decision. I have a close friend who had Canon non AF equipment, and who wanted to move into a smaller and lighter SLR wirh AF ability. He decided on a Pentax MZ5-n. The decision was strongly influenced by the dials and controls on that camera - rotary, without LCD displays. The location of those controls was fairly traditional too.

    All of those factors influenced the style of the camera.

    I expect that there were a lot of Nikon owners who, when the FM3A was being designed, wanted to update their cameras, but who didn't want to change too much.

    IMHO those Nikon owners had/ve good taste.

    Matt

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Well, I am now the proud owner of a (second-hand) Fm3A body, bought from Mr Cad this morning. Apparently they hardly ever get them in, so I feel very lucky. It's in very good condition and is black like my Fm2n.

    So I'm very happy

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin