Why are used Nikon F100s so cheap compared to the FM3A?

A

awilder

Alan Wilder
Local time
10:10 AM
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
1,449
As a happy D700 user, I have a nice F100 I'd love to sell but I see on the used market the sell for around $175-225, less than half of a used FM3A. I've always felt the F100 was their best AF body given it's light weight, size and capability with all their current lenses including G style as well as older AI or AIS lenses. I'd like to sell mine to a film user but hate to practically give it away. Why don't they sell for a better price? Surely film isn't completely dead given the popularity of M film bodies.
 
Last edited:
Besides the near-cult status of the FM3a, I think it was made in far fewer numbers than the F100, so that probably adds somewhat to the price disparity.
 
You'd think with Nikon gradually moving from F mount to G mount in their lens arsenal that the F100 would be good film back up. I suppose there are so many out there, the price is suppressed. I used classic Nikons for 40 years, but try using some of their best lenses like the new 24-70/2.8 G on a classic.
 
Most of the clientelle for plastic, automatic cameras is on digital now.
 
It seems likely that people who want to shoot with film want a manual, mechanical camera or as close to as possible.
 
FM3A was very short lived due to Nikon getting out of film camera business though they kept making F6 after the discontinuation of FM3A and outsourced FM10 to Cosina. FM3A is probably the only one (correct me if I'm wrong) "hybrid shutter" camera that allowed Aperture Priority auto as well as mechanical shutter release of all speeds without battery.

I loved the FM3A I purchased new right after it came out. I wish I kept it, and I for one, would pay more for FM3A (but often just too over priced) than the F100 though F100 itself is a great camera from what I've heard.
 
Leica R6.2 is fully mechanical. No AE. Basically Leica's reflex M6.

Back to the original post. I'd keep it anyway! I just bought one again after stupidly selling mine 3 years ago. I paid €130 for one in mint condition with the later film rewind.
I think the Fm3A is perceived as a classic now. The F100 was made in such large numbers that the value has collapsed. The fact that the F100 is probably a better camera in every way matters not.
I got rid of mine because it didn't feel like an old Nikon! stupid really as now I'm used to the D700 I missed the easy transition to the film equivalent, the F100.
I've added an F5 to my Nikon gear and really think that these two Nikon's are the best value cameras available at the moment. I got my mint F5 for 200 quid!
 
Desirability, simple as that. Do you think the X100 would have been successful if it looked like a Canon Rebel?

MT
 
If you think F100 prices are low you might want to look at the F80 (N80) prices. OK, it's not quite as sturdy as F100 and it can only take AF lenses but it's a darned good camera. KEH sells them in EX condition for $39.
 
I think the timing of the release had a lot to do with the prices too... it came out so close in time to the D1 that most photographers went after the D1 instead. BH still has a few new-in-box F100's for about $750, and then they had some 9/10 and 10/10 condition F100's which are for all practical purposes new, mine was one such camera.
 
Possibly because the F100 is, by historic standards, a comparatively cheap and generic camera, so that if you care about your photography and are not actually on the breadline, and have a huge range of ridiculously cheap first-class cameras to choose from, you'd rather have an FM3A or better still a Nikkormat or a proper F.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom