Nikon FM, what a joy to shoot!

[pendennis]

I own both the FM2 and the FM2n, and Nikon hit it out of the park with the FM series. It has everything I need, and nothing I don't.

The only thing I've found over time, is that they almost seem too lightweight. I miss the heft of the F2, so I've added MD-12's to both of them. I like them with my 24mm f/2.8 AIs, and it's probably the widest for wide angle, before I start to get some distortion. I miss the 105mm f/2.5 AIs that I foolishly sold a couple of years back. I do have a 105mm f/4 Micro, that's an adequate, for now, substitute.

I like a 50mm f/1.8 or even a 50mm f/2 for a "walk around" lens.

Glad you found one!

I'm loving the camera, it's fantastic. The 105mm f2.5 has been great so far, you should definitely get another.

Done! I found one earlier today on eBay from a Japanese seller. 105mm f/2.5 AI, on the way. Can't wait!

 

[480sparky]

IMHO, forget the motor drive.
It adds weight and bulk, and it tends to make you to shoot bursts. Burst shooting is expensive when you are shooting film. Think $1+ a frame (film and processing).
If you shoot fast moving subjects, then the motor drive has value, otherwise it is just bulk.
Granted it is a nice toy.

It does has two settings... one is Single, which fires the shutter once.

I use mine all the time (FM2n) and wouldn't be without it. Makes the camera MUCH easier to handle as it adds so much more grippable area.

 

[Kiron Kid]

IMHO, forget the motor drive.
It adds weight and bulk, and it tends to make you to shoot bursts. Burst shooting is expensive when you are shooting film. Think $1+ a frame (film and processing).
If you shoot fast moving subjects, then the motor drive has value, otherwise it is just bulk.
Granted it is a nice toy.

It does has two settings... one is Single, which fires the shutter once.

I use mine all the time (FM2n) and wouldn't be without it. Makes the camera MUCH easier to handle as it adds so much more grippable area.

I concur.

 

[Kiron Kid]

Get the MD-12. Do not get the MD-11.

 

[compur]

Some trivia about the FM:

There were two versions of the FM and no, I don't mean the FM/FM2. The original FM had two versions. The one shown in the OP is the first version with knurled ring around the shutter release button. When a motor drive (MD-11 originally, later the MD-12) was mounted you were supposed to turn this ring to the motor drive position and turn it back when you removed the motor.

Many users weren't aware of this requirement and had trouble with motor drives when using the FM so Nikon revised the camera design to eliminate that ring. So, later FM cameras had a smooth ring that didn't turn and the user didn't have to worry about setting anything when mounting a motor drive.

 

[gryffinwings]

For those that mentioned the Nikkor 24mm, I think I might pass on it, heard it wasn't the best wide angle. I'm looking at instead getting the Nikkor 20mm f3.5 ai, heard it was pretty good.

 

[Kiron Kid]

The Nikon 24 “f/2.8” is excellent.

 

[ac12]

I've been using a 24/2.8 since the early 1970s. Worked just fine for me. How critical are you?

IMHO going from a 50 to 20 is a heck of a BIG jump in viewing angle. 24 was on the edge of controlabillity for perspective distortion. Most people stopped at the 28. That is what the 18-x DX lenses match; 18mm on DX approximates 28mm on FX. If you get a 20, you should also get a 35, to bridge the gap between the 50 and the 20.

 

[pendennis]

One of the reasons I like the 24 is that it's right on the edge of maintaining straight lines, even when the focus is a bit off axis. The 20 gets distorted very quickly; only a few degrees off axis and you can see it. I own the AF-D versions of the 20 and 24 @ f/2.8, and while the 24 isn't always wide enough, it does a great job as my "general" wide angle lens.

I like the 35mm f/2 but it was never wide enough, but seemed more like a "normal" focal length lens. I scrapped it in favor of the 24mm. That's just a personal tic.

BTW, there's an individual in a nearby town, who has a 16mm f/3.5 fish eye. Still considering it, but it's a really specialized tool. My Tokina 17mm f3.5 has enough distortion.

 

[Kiron Kid]

One of the reasons I like the 24 is that it's right on the edge of maintaining straight lines, even when the focus is a bit off axis. The 20 gets distorted very quickly; only a few degrees off axis and you can see it. I own the AF-D versions of the 20 and 24 @ f/2.8, and while the 24 isn't always wide enough, it does a great job as my "general" wide angle lens.

I like the 35mm f/2 but it was never wide enough, but seemed more like a "normal" focal length lens. I scrapped it in favor of the 24mm. That's just a personal tic.

BTW, there's an individual in a nearby town, who has a 16mm f/3.5 fish eye. Still considering it, but it's a really specialized tool. My Tokina 17mm f3.5 has enough distortion.

I agree. Going from 50 to 24 is a huge leap. 28 is perfect for many people. I find the 24mm length to be very useful. I also use my 20-40 AF very often. And my 17mm rectilinear doesn’t get much use at all. I believe that the attached snap was in the 20mm range.

 

[gryffinwings]

The Nikon 24 “f/2.8” is excellent.

I've been using a 24/2.8 since the early 1970s. Worked just fine for me. How critical are you?

IMHO going from a 50 to 20 is a heck of a BIG jump in viewing angle. 24 was on the edge of controlabillity for perspective distortion. Most people stopped at the 28. That is what the 18-x DX lenses match; 18mm on DX approximates 28mm on FX. If you get a 20, you should also get a 35, to bridge the gap between the 50 and the 20.

One of the reasons I like the 24 is that it's right on the edge of maintaining straight lines, even when the focus is a bit off axis. The 20 gets distorted very quickly; only a few degrees off axis and you can see it. I own the AF-D versions of the 20 and 24 @ f/2.8, and while the 24 isn't always wide enough, it does a great job as my "general" wide angle lens.

I like the 35mm f/2 but it was never wide enough, but seemed more like a "normal" focal length lens. I scrapped it in favor of the 24mm. That's just a personal tic.

BTW, there's an individual in a nearby town, who has a 16mm f/3.5 fish eye. Still considering it, but it's a really specialized tool. My Tokina 17mm f3.5 has enough distortion.

Yup, definitely having a hard time figuring out which wide angle lens to get now, I think I will make a dedicated thread for it.

 

[jcdeboever]

I recently sold mine. Smooth as silk shooting experience. I didn't care for the viewfinder, not 100%, no eye relief, scratched the hell out of my glasses. Other than that, great little shooter.

 

[gryffinwings]

I recently sold mine. Smooth as silk shooting experience. I didn't care for the viewfinder, not 100%, no eye relief, scratched the hell out of my glasses. Other than that, great little shooter.

I know what you mean, I used to wear glasses myself until I got lasik.

 

[shadowlands]

I love the look! I just got a DF and I love the dials up top!

 

[Kiron Kid]

I love the look! I just got a DF and I love the dials up top!

View attachment 167500

I do not have a digital camera and no desire for one. However, if I were to get one, the Df is the one that appeals to me.

Russ