Besides the lenses..I think FM3A is a marvel of construction in its own, comparable to M7.

AE mode..1/4000th battery-less, TTL, spot meter, hybrid shutter, all-metal, soft shutter noise.

Now, what abt nikon lenses??;)

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002

Answers

Excellent camera. Nikon lenses are excellent too ... Hasn't forty years of being the leading camera system in the hands of working pros given them some credibility?

They're different from Leica lenses, yes. I like the Leica lenses better. I sold my Nikon stuff after working with it for 30+ years and bought heavily into Leica gear. But that doesn't mean the Nikon equipment is deficient.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 24, 2002.

Godferey, in your opinion..whats the ONLY nikon prime lens you would keep? price not being in question.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

the meter of the fm3a is not really a spotmeter, unfortunately, but rather centerweight

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), March 24, 2002.

Apparently, FM3A does have a spot meter function. Am I wrong?

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

About Nikon lenses - it depends what you're after. Their medium and long teles are pretty darn good (85/1.8, my 85/2.0, the 105/2.5, 180/2.8, 300/2.8 etc.) Their macro lenses are also very good - from the old 55 Micro to the current 200/4.0 - though the Leica 100/2.8 is the standard-setter in this area.

The one place I find Nikon's lens lineup woefully deficient is the one area that's most important to me - fast wide angles. The only Nikkor wide angle I've ever been happy with has been the 28/2.8 AIS. I've had three 24/2.8 examples that all left me cold. The one 24/2.0 I've owned was particularly egregious - soft with lots of flare and colour fringing. The 20/2.8 AF I had was mushy at the edges at all apertures. The 28/2.8 AI I owned was low-contrast and low-resolution. I've tried four 35/2.0 lenses, from the original non-AI to a late AIS model - at 2.0 and 4.0 they were all unacceptably soft.

Contrast that to Leica wide angles. Except for the pre-ASPH Summilux, which I doubt I'd like either from the descriptions of its wide-open performance - all the recent Leica wides have been flat-out exceptional.

Nikon is putting no further development into fast wide angles, preferring to concentrate on moderate-aperture zooms. You can't fault them - that's where the bucks are. But if you're a fast WA junkie, Nikon has nothing to offer, IMNSHO.

OTOH, I've kept my F3 mainly to use with their 180 AF. Much as I'd love to own the new 180 Elmarit, the price/performance ratio of that Nikkor is simply unbeatable. And I think the F3 is the M7 of the SLR world.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), March 24, 2002.

My mistake...NO SPOT METER..;)

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

Travis, my vote for the only Nikon prime I'd keep would have to go to the 180. My buddy who has switched mostly to Hasselblad kept his F5 just so he could use the 200/4.0 AF Micro - it's the only lens he uses in 35mm any more, and he's done amazing stuff with it.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), March 24, 2002.

Paul, nice info there..thx.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

Travis;

I have the Hexar RF full kit and an M6 as well as an FM3a, with the new 45mm pancake 2.8 lens.

I just spent a few days in Manila Philipines and shot about 10 rolls: 50:50 with the M6 and the 45mm lens, albeit on an old FM.

I did not keep track of what roll was in what camera, except for one, and I can not for the life of me tell ANY difference that would betray which lens took what- in slides or colour neg-Fuji 100 Superia. I guess if I studied the perspectives I could make a good guess but that is what it would be.

Keeping in mind that Leica lenses are not all Leica any more, I doubt if a Nikor, made completely in-house from the sand for the glass on up, would be any worse, when the put their mind to it.

I have the 45m here beside me now and the build quality leaves nothing to ANY other lens. If Nikon would make the new/old RF again, I would likely trade the Leica. I have had Nikons for 35 years (OH my God-that long - a third of a century and I'm not famous yet?)and NEVER had a mechanical problem that I did not cause by bouncing or the like.

Since Leica, Leitz and Nikon make many other precision optical devices, there is nothing one knows that the other does not.

Marketing is all.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

Richard, when u said you could NOT tell the pictures apart, I'd assume that they were equally GOOD? ;))

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

OOOPSS Forgot.

I was using a 1982 vintage 35 Summicron with the M6.

PS: With the kind of fast street shooting I was doing, I wish I had brought my Black Hexar non-interchangable lens sleeper. The AF and AE are unbeatable and with 100 film, the 250 sec top speed would not have been a problem. The AF on the Hexar is much faster than my F90X.

The briliant colours of the Jeepneys sparkle with both lenses and no flare.

Cheers again

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

Travis;

Yes, good from a technical point of view; aesthically, that is a different matter. I will be traveling away from my desk computer for a month, but will post some examples of the Manila shots hen I get back.

CHEERs 3

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

Travel well, Richard.;)

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

I've been using the FM3a for several months now. For me, it's perfect. But then again, my first serious camera was an FM back in 1977 (which only recently died, by the way), so I'm very comfortable with it It does not have a spot meter, but a 60/40 averaging meter, weighted towards the botton, center of the frame. It works well. There's no advantage to Leica's meter, or Nikon's meter...only a body that offers multiple metering modes will win here. If you buy an M7 or an FM3a, you're stuck with one meter.

Nikon and Leica lenses are indeed different. But I wouldn't call one better than the other. In real life, it simply doesn't matter. Leica is better, on the edges, wide open. This may be important to you, so you should consider that. It's not an issue with me, because I'm usually looking for some depth of field, and I'm stopping down anyway, especially with a wide angle.

At the moment I'm using the following:

A 20/3.5 wide...very small and light, very sharp, but not outstanding. No flare, and almost zero fall-off. It's also a very hard lens to find. I splurged on this lens...$370.00 on ebay for a pristine, like new sample.

A 35/2.0 AF-D...the latest, af version of this lens...good manual focus feel for an AF lens, about the same quality as my Zeiss 35/2 for the G system.

A 50/1.8...sharp as can be by f4, great contrast. I have the very thin AIS model. I paid $40.00 on ebay. Don't pay for a new one, or the faster 50/1.4. There's an endless supply of these lenses offered used. Just pick a clean, well-cared for sample and you're set.

A 100/2.8E lens...just as sharp as the 105/2.5, but a little flatter color. Still quite acceptable. I use an 81a warming filter which helps this. It's tiny, the same size as the 35/2.0. I paid under $100.00 on ebay.

I don't want to get into a the "which camera is better" thing, because it's not important. I prefer the Nikon, especially with wide angles, because I can frame more accurately...everything else is a toss up.

The FM line from Nikon, for me, provides the same opportunity for Leica-like photography. The bodies are the same, small size as Leica's. They're unobtrusive and quiet (no, not as quiet as a Leica, but close). More importantly, they somehow let you get closer to your subject. In my opinion, these bodies aren't for long lenses. They're for more intimate work.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 24, 2002.

I use both Nikon and Leica M cameras side-by-side. While the Leica lenses are consistently very good, there are not as many focal lengths to be honest. You can find some world class lenses made from any major manufacturer, but the premier lenses from some companies are a bit thinner amongst the whole range. My favorite focal lengths from Nikon are the 24mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/1.4 and the 105mm f/2.5. These are all manual focus AI / AIS lenses made from metal and glass. I have had several Auto-focus lenses break over a short period of use, so I went back to what works for me. I also have some other lenses that I use often, like the 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and a beautiful 135mm f/2.0, which I use wide-open all of the time. I offer some recent shots, but of course the limitations of a computer screen come into play.

55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor shot wide-open

135mm f/2.0 Nikkors shot wide-open

portfolio of shots made with the 35mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 24, 2002.

Sorry... here is the 135mm shot. 135mm f/2.0 Nikkors shot wide-open

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 24, 2002.

Richard, if you're going to the Far East, specifically the Philippines you might as well visit the Ilocos REgion lots of photo ops down there. On the south side visit Boracay. REgards,

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), March 24, 2002.

Soft shutter noise, the FM3A ??

-- Lucien (Lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), March 24, 2002.

My dear friends,

I am stunned !

Someone has dared to compare a Nikon FM3A to a Leica M (or any other small format RF camera for all intent and purpose)… And there seem to be no remark about the irrelevance of the comparative.

I don’t mean I consider Nikon products inferior (or superior by the way)… A Nikon camera even the cute and compact FM3A, is simply based on a completely different concept than a rangefinder camera. It is akin comparing the virtues of a hot dog to those of a pack of brownies.

Though the capabilities of both designs may somewhat overlap and both are cameras, they are essentially made with a different approach to photography in mind. What A Nikon (like any 35 mm SLR) can specifically do: the use of long tele-lens and the use of extension tubes or bellows to perform macro-photography the M or any other RF camera can’t do. Conversely, where an RF camera really shines: ability to focus very precisely at full aperture even in low light low contrast situation, absolute compactness of the design (including the lenses), silence of operation, absence of vibration allowing to use the camera hand held at lower speeds, the Nikon or any other reflex camera won’t do.

Though I admit (at least to a certain extent) the FM3A, because it lacks the built in motor and is a very compact design looks a better complement (or the M a better complement to it) than an auto all F5 for example, I’m not sure it is in fact more the ideal complement of an M than a real new reflex packed with all the automatisms provided today.

What a Nikon FM3A reflex camera can bring your RF camera cannot ?

Long tele-lens capability: but in such case it has been amply demonstrated an AF reflex camera does it better and faster.

Macro-photography: Sure a FM3A SLR is better than a RF here, even if you use A Visoflex III… But only to a certain extent, as relatively high magnification macro-photography needs time to be practised and the FM3A has no built in auto-macro-flash TTL capabilities (on the contrary to what is available in an F5 for example). And because any medium format SLR camera with TTL OTF flash capabilities will do a better job than both anyway without being really more cumbersome at all…

What a Nikon FM3A can bring a more modern 35 mm SLR concept can’t bring and how this does interfere with the capabilities of an 35 mm RF camera?

Unfortunately the FM3A as a good camera as it might be (intrinsically) brings almost absolutely nothing when compared to an F5 camera (or a similar one). It has no matrix metering in AE mode, nor a real spot meter in manual mode. Even the fact Nikon cleverly preserved many manual lenses in its range does not bring any advantage as the F5 can be used with them. Its only advantage is a relative compactness. But where does the real advantage of using manual focusing lenses is real? It happens to be where the focal lens in use are perfectly compatible with an RF camera!… And as far as compactness is concerned an RF camera still easily beats the Nikon FM3A. As good as it may be, this reflex is nothing more than a camera for nostalgic people with absolutely no practical interest. Technically speaking, if you want to complement your 35mm rangefinder system by a compact 35mm reflex camera with manual advance and no AF you will be better inspired to buy a Leica R8. And if someone wants to complement really efficiently his 35 mm rangefinder system it would have better time looking for an F5 or a Canon EOS if he is focused on tele-lens action photography or a medium format SLR for any other assignment. Both of them will offer him much more capabilities which obviously cannot be packed into a 35 mm RF camera.

Notice I was a Nikon professional user for years. So I know the quality of this brand very well… But if I finally went to rangefinder cameras for small format photography complemented by a Medium format SLR system it is not only because of sentimental feelings… I’d only whish one day an RF camera will pack what is still only found on modern 35 mm SLR: matrix metering in AE mode and spot metering in manual mode, real TTL flash capabilities with a high speed synchronized shutter… As far as I’m concerned, when it will appear, unless digital photography has already reached the definition of silver halide film, it will be the best small format tool ever for general photography.

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 24, 2002.

Lenses: I agree with 90% of what Paul said exactly - two exceptions: every f/2 85mm I ever used was just plain mushy at f/2 (but actually outdid the preASPH 90 'cron at f/4 and below for sharpness) - and the 20 f/2.8 (at least in metal AIS mount) is only microscopically behind the 21 pre-ASPH in sharpness - they are both a little soft at the corners in different ways - The Nikon seems to 'smear' the image a bit while the Leitz has "non-directional" softness.

Since I have a Leicaflex SL now for the times I need longer stuff - the one Nikkor I would repurchase is the 16 f/2.8 AIS fisheye - much better than the Leica at 2.8 and holds its own at smaller apertures. Plus it's cheapish (used) which is good for a special-purpose lens. I'm even considering getting a Nikon-to-M adapter and using it on the M with my 15mm V'lander finder to save carrying the F body.

Actually I think the FM/FM2/FE/FM3A all make fairly good Leica-M "simulators" - compact mechanical no-frills cameras with decent compact lenses and split-image manual focusing. I used them that way for 20 years. (Yeah, Olympus OM does too - but Nikon comes out way ahead on reliability - IMHE)

The difference is, of course, noise, shake, and wide-open lens performance (with some lenses, not all). A Leica-M handheld with a 35 at f/2 and 1/15th or 1/8th gets the picture - any SLR will get mush.

One other (trivial) factor where I prefer the M - film advance. I love winding the M with 2-3 short strokes. The FM cameras can be wound in multiple strokes, but you still wind up (pun) having to push your thumb all the way around to the strap lug in the end. And with the Nikon's centered viewfinder my thumb and glasses were alway getting tangled up - I eventually ended up using the FMs mostly with motors for that reason - at which point they no longer bear any resemblance to Leica Ms at all.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 24, 2002.

As a wedding present in the mid 70's, we bought our son-in-law a 105mm f2.5 for his Nikkormat. He's since upgraded his Nikon stable - - but he's kept that 105. Looking at his Kodachrome slides from earlier days, and his current Fuji slides of both portrait and landscape varieties, projected via our P2002 with a SuperColorplan 90mm , IMHO that 105 is a unique lens. Truly a keeper.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 24, 2002.

I recently purchased an FM3A and 45mm P lens. The camera is very pleasant to work with but it is still noisy compared with the Leica M. I find the 45mm to be very useful focal length, more so than either the 35 or 50. I don't know if the "P" designation refers to its pancake profile but mounted to the FM3A it makes a compact unit that might only be improved upon by the M6 with the Elmar 50mm. But then, the Elmar must be extended before use. At $760 for both camera and lens [B&H], I consider it a very good value though I doubt that it will hold its value like the M series Leica has over the years. But then, what does?

-- John (mymacv@aol.com), March 24, 2002.

Prior to owning my M6 I owned the FM3a with the 45mm f/2.8 lens. It is a top lens and equals my Leica gear. Compared to the M7, I think it is much better in most areas, BUT it doens't accept M lenses and uses a mirror, causing vibration. That alone was enough to persuade me. I couldn't be happier now.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

But if you're a fast WA junkie, Nikon has nothing to offer, IMNSHO.

Au contraire, Paul... Nikon makes the fastest 28 currently available, the 28/1.4 AF-D. I have one sitting on my shelf right now, haven't shot with it yet (waiting for F100 to come in).

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002.

Compare a horse with a donkey.Not as well made(massed produced).SLR clunk shutter,plenty of vibs.Lenses not in same class.Buy F5 OR F100 lot better cameras.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 25, 2002.

Always the same arguments here when someone suggests an slr in preference to a Leica...noise and mirror vibration...as if these two issues have ruined every photograph made by an slr.

If you're considering which one to buy, Travis, pick the one that you're the most comfortable with. Neither the M7 or the FM3a is going to provide you with some magical powers to make great photographs...you'll have to do that on your own.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 25, 2002.

Anyone knows that SLRs are better for long lenses, like 135mm and up. The great dilemma is that a RF can focus a wide angle much more accurately than an SLR; but with an SLR, you can see what you're doing better.

Used to be that the RF wideangles were better because they were "real" wideangles. But now, the 21mm, 24mm, and 28mm are retrofocus just like the lenses for an SLR.

So what's important? Accurate focus? A "real" WA? Or seeing what we're doing?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 25, 2002.

To Jim Tardio,

I will simply say that:

Did you ever had to get a picture of an indoor conference hall full of people your editor wants to show as crowded as possible which is dimly (by photographic standards) illuminated with the heads and the backs of the people at the tribune on the foreground, the all thing as sharp as possible ? Taking such a picture with a 400 ISO - ASA film without a push needing something like f/5.6 and 1/4th of a second with a very wide angle ?

Then try it hand held with an SLR you'll know how easy you'll end up with a blurred picture... Even if you're steady as a rock and hold your breath... Mirror vibration is the cause, probably doubled by the sudden and long black out in the finder and the time parallaxe induced by the SLR system...

You'd better have a small rangefinder camera.

Now, even with the much clearer screens built in the new generation of SLR, ever tried to focus properly a small tele lens for portraiture at maximum aperture in low light low contrast conditions?

Well you might have a much better view than mine but I guess I will succeed better with my RF camera... Just because not only will I get more light and more contrast through my viefinder but also because the image superposition will lead to a much precise focusing than any human eye estimating the degree of sharpness and no micro-prism or split field helpers will ever had the same precision if they operates properly at all. AF I heard you say ? Well try it in those conditions and will see how it performs as the lack of contrast (even with the latest ones which tolerates better the low light conditions)will preclude it to operate at all...

Silence ? Well, it may be something less frequently required than the other points, but if you use a true M (one of the points I crticize on My Hexar RF) you'd have a better chance not to be expelled after the first shot... (Shglonggggggg, then ziiiiiiiiiiiiiip, if you use a motorized one)

Not to say 35 mm SLR's are no use or no good. They are simply not suited for the same role.

To Allen Herbert now.

Allen, my friend, you'd be more convincing if you'd not ever use over-simplification and abrupt statements...

A FM3A is not a cheaply built plactic toy as an entry level SLR of today. It is clearly built as all Nikons once were and probably better than a F 100 is... True the F 100 is a better "technical" choice for what it brings a 35 mm RF camera can't offer but only the F5 will bring the owner something up to the stringent requirements of hard professional use in terms of resistance to hard treatments (and better more traditional ergonomics by the way).

As for the alleged quality of built of today M's, I won't be as affirmative as you are. Modern mass assembly procedures are generally performing better than the chiefly hand made technology and heavy manual control still in vogue at Leica's and are conducive to a lesser rejection rate... We are no more in the 60's and I'm not so sure a M6 or M7 is better built than a FM3A in terms of qulity of assembly and even material used. Many a reviewer has already stated for example the Hexar RF which is built "the modern way" is generally at least equal on those points to a M body and even sometimes superior...

I still maintain the Nikon FM3A is something very odd as a modern SLR as it doesn't give you all the technical advantages a modern SLR will give you where it is the best suited piece of equipment. But I won't say or suggest it is a piece of crap either. And it's why I suggested (for a Nikon camera) a F5 as a better choice.

The only thing I can say to Travis is think twice before buying a FM3A, because a rangefinder camera will serve you better in general photography and a modern SLR better in action Tele-photography too. As far as macro-photography, landscape photography or studio photography are concerned, a Medium format SLR is even a better choice than both. this is not related to quality of construction, but to many purely technical considerations.

Friendly to all

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 25, 2002.

So what's important? Accurate focus? A "real" WA? Or seeing what we're doing?

I gotta go with seeing what we're doing. Isn't that the objective here? I prefer an slr for this. I use wide angles a lot. I spent a lot of time with the VC 21/4 and even more time with a Nikon 20. They're both great. But with an slr I can focus on certain objects within the frame. Because of the auxillary finder with wide angles on an RF, I'm just giving it my best guess, hoping the DOF will take care of it.

I don't want to argue what's best here, because there is no answer. Rangefinders are wonderful. I own and use them, mostly because they're compact. I just don't think that they do anything substantially better than an slr. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to go one route or the other. At this point in time, after using both systems under identical circumstances, I prefer an slr, specifically, my FM3a, which I use with lenses in the range that most of you use your Leicas.

It's just my preference, and it's not meant as a dis against rangefinders. I can appreciate both. As I said, use what gets the job done for you.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 26, 2002.

To Jim Tardio, I will simply say that:

Did you ever had to get a picture of an indoor conference hall full of people your editor wants to show as crowded as possible which is dimly (by photographic standards) illuminated with the heads and the backs of the people at the tribune on the foreground, the all thing as sharp as possible ? Taking such a picture with a 400 ISO - ASA film without a push needing something like f/5.6 and 1/4th of a second with a very wide angle ?

Then try it hand held with an SLR you'll know how easy you'll end up with a blurred picture... Even if you're steady as a rock and hold your breath... Mirror vibration is the cause, probably doubled by the sudden and long black out in the finder and the time parallaxe induced by the SLR system...

If I did that I wouldn't have a job for long. And even if I could hold either type of camera for 1/4 of a second, I'd have to request that eveyone in the conference stand perfectly still.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), March 26, 2002.

François

Allen, my friend, you'd be more convincing if you'd not ever use over- simplification and abrupt statements.

Yes, you are right,a silly habit.

Regards Allen

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 26, 2002.