SLR - Nikon

phaatjoe · Feb 15, 2005

Hi! I have a question. I need a fully manual camera and I was thinking of either getting a Nikon FA or a Nikon FM3A... or something else like maybe an F3? or something else?

which do you guys suggest I should get and why?

thanks, your suggestions and comments are greatly appreciated

Mitica100 · Feb 15, 2005

How about a Pentax 1000? Cheap warhorses, plenty to find on Ebay. Excellent lens variety.

phaatjoe · Feb 15, 2005

Pentax 1000? I haven't considered that. Is it good as well? I'm looking for something that has manual settings for the shutter, aperture, etc.

thanks for the advice, i'll look into it.

Mitica100 · Feb 15, 2005

phaatjoe said:
Pentax 1000? I haven't considered that. Is it good as well? I'm looking for something that has manual settings for the shutter, aperture, etc.

thanks for the advice, i'll look into it.

You're quite welcome. And while I'm at it, welcome to TPF.

Pentax 1000 is fully manual, much cheaper than a Nikon (usually). :mrgreen:

KevinR · Feb 15, 2005

IMHO I like my Nikon FM2. Have never had a problem with it and I am not gentle with my gear.

spike000 · Feb 15, 2005

Try an F3 - they are superb - particularly when you whack a MD4 on them.

See the site below for a review.

Kodan_Txips · Feb 15, 2005

KevinR said:

"I am not gentle with my gear"

and THAT is why I would be VERY careful when buying a second hand Nikon.

They were always considered as being the true professional's workhorse, and their reputation was closely rivalled by that of the best Canons. But in most cases, it might even been the case that either of the 2 brands will have taken many times as many shots as a top "amateur" camera, and the Nikons may have been to some horrendous environments, deserts, mines, arctic conditions. the list is endless.

Top non-pro cameras will probably have been lovingly tended by wannabees, taken far less shots, and rarely been anywhere extreme.

I suggest you look for the better models in the "lesser" marques - I am thinking of Olympus, Pentax, and Minolta especially. I am biased, maybe, as I have recently bought 2! Minolta strove with all their might to make that credibility leap into professional acceptance, decades ago when I was last keen on photography. I don't think they ever quite made it, I doubt if they have yet, but in their efforts they created some stunning cameras and lenses. See the Rokkorfiles.

In the late 60s and early 70s I worked in a camera shop, selling mainly Pentaxes and Chinons, and my interest survived until Olympus slrs started to appear. I think Pentaxes and Olympusses may be very common, But I was never impressed with the build of the cameras - they all seemed too light and frail. The Pentaxes seemed tinny, and the Olympus plasticky. All this at a time when plastics were (maybe) not as good as nowadays.

Soooo, get a Minolta. My X300 cost me 45 dollars, complete with f1.7 50mm. My second is a black plastic X300s with a 100-200 lens, a 24-70 vivitar lens, a dedicated flashgun, and other sundries. That lot cost me 100 dollars. I dislike the black plastic of the X300s, but it is cladding for a steel body I believe.

I couldnt afford a Nikon, even though it may well have been harder worked, The Minoltas are both near mint, and in PERFECT working order.

spike000 · Feb 15, 2005

Olympus have gone to shat recently - they can't compete with Canon and Nikon in the current market.

Pre 1980 - definately Pentax or Olympus
Post 1980 - Canon (EOS not FD system) or Nikon.

Be careful - as Kodan_Txips says - second hand pro gear can be overused purpled mirror rubbish!!!!! But decent stuff can be worth its weight in gold. Nikons tend to devalue as soon as they are removed from the box whereas Canon (not only expose correctly and have a faster AF system) also tend to hold their value longer- just dont batter them!

Good Luck - and to anyone else that is thinking of posting I don't want to start the Nikon/Canon war - we're just better!

Forever yours in Canon gear

Spike

KevinR · Feb 15, 2005

WHAT.... Canon better than Nikon.....Thats the craziest thing that I ever........I would love to find a nice priced EOS 10s. :lol:

Kodan_Txips · Feb 15, 2005

I always dreamed of getting a Canon AE1. It was mainly seeing an X300 on ebay, at the then bid of 6.99 pounds, that got me into Minolta. But the camera, when it arrived, stunned me with its quality.

Just as good as I remember the Canons as being - when new. (And that brings me back to my above points...)

phaatjoe · Feb 15, 2005

errr... thanks guys...

see, i kinda made up my mind and decided i want a nikon. so i'm thinking whether to get an FM3A , F3 or an FA... i'm close to buying an FA. what do you guys say?

KevinR · Feb 15, 2005

Sounds good to me, but then again I guess I'm the guy that is endorsing the nikons anyway.

As long as it is a reasonable price and nicely maintained, go for it.

malachite · Feb 15, 2005

phaatjoe said:
errr... thanks guys...

see, i kinda made up my mind and decided i want a nikon. so i'm thinking whether to get an FM3A , F3 or an FA... i'm close to buying an FA. what do you guys say?

I'm a Nikon guy so I say FM2N for a quality all manual camera with everything you'll ever need as far as features go. If you want to spend a few bucks more, the F3 would be the ticket.

phaatjoe · Feb 15, 2005

hahaha, so the F3 is better than the FA? what about the FM3A? sorry. hehe i'm full of these questions.. i've been comparing these three since forever!

KevinR · Feb 15, 2005

I used a F3 for a long time. The problem I have with them are pretty minor.

1. Slow flash sync. Not that big a problem, but I would occasionally get some suitcase studio work.
2. Not as fast a top shutter speed as the FM.
3. If batteries die in the F3, it will only work at 60th of a second, where the FM will work fully manual without a battery(hence the name FM).