FM3a + Voigtlander SL or .. ?

[Matus]

Just few days ago me and my wife visited a good friend (after long time) and he showed us some of the photos he took. Not printed, not on screen, but projected on a wall. Even though the room could not be made really dark and even though he did not have a dedicated screen for projection - I was stunned by the color and liveness of the images - indeed it was a long time since I have seen color slides projected.

Around the same time I after long time used my wives Minolta Dynax 7 and realized how cool it is to be able to focus closer than 1 meter and in spite of bright sunny day to get that clear view through the viewfinder. So much different than my Mamiya 6.

All of the above got me thinking about a manual focus SLRs.

So - just thinking loud - what would be the best way to get a reliable, sturdy and somewhat compact manual focus SLR with nice viewfinder, reliable metering and some not too large lenses at about 21, 35, 50 and 100 focal length? Would you go with FM3a and the Voigtlander SL lenses (which based on what I have read seem to be very good) or would you go with Nikon lenses or with Contax system or other system ... ?

I am not saying I am about to buy a system, but what would be the way to go? I love my Mamiya 6 but 6x6 projectors are huge and rare and 35mm SLR is small enough (compared to Mamiya 6) to take along for a trip and has faster lenses and focuses closer.

What would be your choice? And do not try to talk me into 645 SLR - I have a soft spot for the Contax 645 there

[paulfish4570]

nikon, nikon, nikon. i really like my FE2 but hope to have an F2A for my birthday. nikkor ais lenses go for moderate prices, at least here in the states. there are some nikon studs here. they will help you much more than i can.

[jmilkins]

I recently bought an Fm3a here and a 40mm sl to suit. It's a great combination. Only consideration would be that the match needle meter can be hard to see in low light.

[dogberryjr]

Originally Posted by jmilkins

I recently bought an Fm3a here and a 40mm sl to suit. It's a great combination. Only consideration would be that the match needle meter can be hard to see in low light.

This is my combo as well. The 40mm just stays on the FM3a, its a perfect (for me) split between wide angle and standard, and of course it renders nicely. I was able to get the CV for a good price because the chip wasn't working, which means nothing when used on a MF body.

[steveyork]

leicaflex sl -- big, bold and beautiful viewfinder; and great ease of focusing.

[sonofdanang]

FM3A - full AE with electronic shutter but also full mechanical redundancy. Magic. Glorious finder.

Nikkor 20/2.8 or 24/2.8, 28/3.5 or 35/2, 50/1.4 or 50 E-series 1.8 ; don't bother with the 50/1.2 - it's not small. 105/2.5 or 100/2.8 macro. I have no idea about the CV lenses in F-mount. Most of the lenses mentioned are relatively inexpensive. You will be very satisfied with a 24/2.8, a 50/1.8, and the 105/2.5 small, durable, and with the exception of the 105, light kit.

[Jamie Pillers]

If you go with Nikon, I can highly recommend the 100mm Series E lens.

[sonofdanang]

Oh, and the FE as a second body.

[sonofdanang]

Or, the E-Series 75-150 3.5 zoom. Small. Very sharp. Stable focus with zoom.
That lens and a 24/2.8 would cover about everything...

Best...

[gavinlg]

I'd recommend an OM2n, serviced by john @ camtech, and with a full set of OM primes from 21-100mm. I just generally find it a nicer system than the nikon F system.

[semilog]

Lot of good advice here. The best MF setup for very little money is an FE. The best lenses for very little money are the Series E 35, 50, and 100 mm lenses. The Series E 50, in particular, may have the best bokeh of any (SLR) Nikon 50 save for the 55 f/1.2. All Nikon 85's are great lenses, as are the 105/2.5's of any generation.

[Athos6]

If I were going to buy another Nikon film slr, I would get another F3hp. But when I really comes down to it go to Keh and take your pick from the FM, FM2n, FE, FE2, or FA cameras. You can't really go wrong.

[Field]

Save some money, just get an FE. FE2's batteries give out faster. The FMA3 is nice but for the huge price gap I would not pretend to try and justify it. Besides the electronic shutters are more accurate. The F3HP is a great one for $50 over the FE.

24mm 2.8, if you get a good one, is confusingly good. 105's are great. On the 50mm I am not sure I agree with other people. As of yet unless you get an exceptional 1.4 (only seen one), the F2's seem to have something extra special about them. I got mine at a photography estate sale and EVERY SINGLE NIKON BODY HAD ONE MOUNTED ON IT. There was probably a dozen at the beginning.

Also look around for 80-200mm Nikon or off brand. The macro, contrast, resolution, for an f4 lens can be freaking awesome.

[semilog]

^------excellent advice. The F3 and FE/FM take a wider range of lenses than the FE2/FM2. Nevertheless, I personally use FE2's and have for 20+ years. I like their size, I like the 1/4000 shutter speed, I like the way the finder info is laid out, and I like the TTL metering with strobes that fit in a standard hot shoe rather than the F3's ******* nonstandard shoe. But there's no question that the FE and FM are great values.

Ken Rockwell has a very useful summary of the various FE/FM variants. The take-home is that the FM3a is, relative to any of the others, a terrible deal.

I personally am not a fan of the FA. Had one and sold it. Smaller finder than the FE/FM series without a corresponding improvement in eye relief [contrast the vastly superior F3HP], and a very noticeably bulkier prism. The FA's first-generation matrix metering offers no advantages that I can think of. Lousy tradeoff.

If you go for a bigger camera, don't mess around. Just get an F3. Dante Stella has great advice on how to buy a used F3.

[steveyork]

I find the viewfinders on the Nikon FM_ cameras very squinty. Not a good option for someone who wears glasses.

[Moriturii]

Olympus OM-4?

[ferider]

OM[1234] all the way.

[mugent]

I've owned an OM4ti and an FM3a, and I think, without doubt, the OMs are the nicer cameras, just more elegant, the FM3a felt like a bit of military apparatus by comparison.

MT

[scorpius73]

I have never had an Oly SLR. I do however have the FM3a. It is a very nice camera. I rather like the layout of it. The match needle is the weak point of it. It can be hard to see in dim light. The exposure lock button on the back work for me in its placement. The CV 40mm f2 SLII is great lens too. Mine stays mounted on my FM3a. I like the pancake size of it. I was looking for somethign to fit between my 28mm and 50mm lenses. The Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS that was in my range was just too big for my taste. The CV 40 is an all around winner. You will not be disappointed.

[rbsinto]

Nikon, cheap, but with all the essential features for serious photography?
If you like match-needle displayed metering: FE.
If you prefer LED +o- metering displays: FM
For more money you can go with the faster flash synched, faster shuttered FE-2 and FM-2.
I'd never suggest the FM3a as in my opinion, it offers very little more than an FE-2 except a elecro-mechanical shutter that most people will never need or use anyway, and is vastly overpriced.

[kshapero]

FM3a and CV 40/2 is a match made in film SLR heaven!!

[Steve M.]

Yes, I agree, go w/ a Leicaflex. The image quality of the R lenses is stunning, much better than the Nikon (and I shot Nikons for years). But I wouldn't actually get a Leicaflex body. I've had much better results using Nikon N8008s cameras w/ R lenses and an adapter. The metering is better, the viewfinder is excellent, and the motorized film advance frees you up for successive shots. Only problem w/ this setup is the cost (and the weight. That R 90 Summicron is all metal and glass). The camera and adapter can be had for peanuts, it's them R lenses that will put a hole in your pocket. My R 50 Summicron used to focus really close too. You could mount an R 100 2.8 APO Macro on it too. God only knows what they cost though.

[semilog]

I actually think that many of the people who trash Nikon optics have gotten their impressions from either (a) zooms or (b) the almost ubiquitous Nikkor 50/1.4 lenses. The latter, in particular, are definitely not the sweet spots of the line. The 55/2.8 micro, 55/1.2 Noct, and 50/1.8 E are all much more pleasing optics that (although they have very divergent characters) compare favorably with anything short of a 50 Summilux ASPH.

[Field]

It really is not about Nikon optics being inferior to say Leica... It is about cherry picking because with Leica you mostly pay for consistency, with Nikon only a few modules offer consistent good optics, and amazing optics are just by chance. My friend bought a 1.4 (S) the other day because it is as good or better than any of his Leica lenses; which he could not afford to cherry pick. Besides some people think Leica lenses are too soft in the edges for their style compared to certain SLR gear.

Here is a photo from a 24mm 2.8. If you will notice the sharpness is as good as you will get or be able to see. Notice the trees. This was not even stopped down all the way. Light fill flash at 1/125. I might have to try that software that corrects wide photos through Wine in Ubuntu. Who knows how sharp it could get.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6222653...in/photostream

Here is an Hanimex HMC zoom 80-200mm w/macro (6 inches I can gear crystal clear shots of the weave in my jeans) . Very light fill flash, f5.6 or 8, 125th. These zoom lenses are cheap and even Ken Rockwell says the Nikon one is superb.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6222653...in/photostream

Both shots were on Fuji Superia 400. The film is nothing to be excited about.

Here are shots from someone on flickr with a 50mm f2. Contrast is not expected to be as high but B&W resolution is just rockn. With the exception of the freakish good 1.4 my friend found, every 1.2 and 1.4 I have looked through offered nothing in resolution comparison. They offered sharper depth of field possibilities but they would fall flat on their face for a portrait.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimsedg...ol-818525@N23/

For a little extra money and if you are ok with a slower lens the Macros are (like almost always) nice. Some other dudes photo, ignore the silly lit guy and take a look at the blue and white posts.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/curt_ry...57626369989055

Pick the camera you like in your hands. People have been using Nikon optics and making more fame and money than anyone on this forum since the 50's. Personally I love my FE. The controls are very simple and I would complain about the needle except at night I pick a shutter speed and flash; which means during the day I adore the control I get over having a reference shutter speed if I take creative liberty. It is an SLR so forget about low light 1/30th or slower shots without flash anyway. The only camera you are going to get away with that kind of speed in hand is with F4/5/6 (from Nikon); with the FE/FM the mirror slap is too much in a light body to use a tripod and get away with really low speeds for precise stuff. I would not use one for studio work.

By the way I like the OM's finder. On the FE you can take the little protective lens off the back and the finder becomes magical looking, but harder to see the edges.

[Matus]

Wow, I did not expect that many answers on a rangefinder forum, thanks

It seems that FM3A (or its ancestors) are really popular. I have read a bit about these cameras (I admit - also KRs' page). I somehow always liked the look of the FE2 and FM3a cameras, but the VC 20/3.5 and 40/2.0 seems to be compact and great lenses which are part of the attraction.

I actually had some time ago Olympus OM2n for a while (borrowed) and the finder was really nice. I would just be worried a bit about the age today. The advantage of the FM3a is that is nearly new. I have heard people speaking very highly about one particular macro lens (85mm ??) and also about normal lenses. But how are the Oly wides?

I did consider Leica R cameras for a while, but I guess that both price and weight would be on the high side.

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the Contax cameras. What would be the best lens (20/24/35/50 ...) & body options there?