maclaine
Well-known
I found my FM3A to be a little disappointing viewfinder wise ... though I agree they handle beautifully!
ps ... that's a lovely photo Jon.
This was my one biggest complaint with mine. I now have an F3 and have nothing to complain about in the VF department.
dave lackey
Veteran
Disappointing? In what ways?
My only complaint is seeing the needle in very low light. But then, the F3/T Champagne sucked as well with the goofy little light that was hard to hold and sometimes did not work. I do prefer LEDs for low light but my FE2 is really fun to use.
The viewfinder is actually pretty good, but then I have been looking through the same or similar VF for XXXXX years!
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Never used a FM3a...but I had a FM2n for a while before stepping up to a Pentax 6x7...
I've tried and owned pretty much all of the Nikkor 50mm's:
50/1.4 Pre-AI 1st version
50/2.0 AI
50/1.4 AI-S
50/1.2 AI-S 9-blade
50/1.8 AF-D
and Sigma 50/1.4.
The Sigma was the best in terms of bokeh. The 50/2 AI was the best in terms of sharpness. 50/1.4 Pre-AI had my favorite rendering in general, although I prefer less contrasty lenses. The 1.4 AI-S and 1.2 AI-S both suffer from pretty strong CA, especially the 1.4. Neither were particularly sharp, though that didn't stop me from making good photos with them. I definitely think the 50/1.8 Series-E is worth a look (good price, very compact, optically not too shabby).
If I didn't have an X100 and I were getting a small SLR with a midrange lens, I would buy the 40/2 Voigtlander. Hands down.
From my experience, none of these lenses (never used the voigtlander, but still) compare with the Zeiss 45mm f/2 for the Contax G series. But you've already bought a FM3a, so stick with Nikkor glass.
Another option would be buying a modified Contax 50/1.7 Zeiss lens, people have changed them to Nikon mount.
I've tried and owned pretty much all of the Nikkor 50mm's:
50/1.4 Pre-AI 1st version
50/2.0 AI
50/1.4 AI-S
50/1.2 AI-S 9-blade
50/1.8 AF-D
and Sigma 50/1.4.
The Sigma was the best in terms of bokeh. The 50/2 AI was the best in terms of sharpness. 50/1.4 Pre-AI had my favorite rendering in general, although I prefer less contrasty lenses. The 1.4 AI-S and 1.2 AI-S both suffer from pretty strong CA, especially the 1.4. Neither were particularly sharp, though that didn't stop me from making good photos with them. I definitely think the 50/1.8 Series-E is worth a look (good price, very compact, optically not too shabby).
If I didn't have an X100 and I were getting a small SLR with a midrange lens, I would buy the 40/2 Voigtlander. Hands down.
From my experience, none of these lenses (never used the voigtlander, but still) compare with the Zeiss 45mm f/2 for the Contax G series. But you've already bought a FM3a, so stick with Nikkor glass.
Another option would be buying a modified Contax 50/1.7 Zeiss lens, people have changed them to Nikon mount.
dave lackey
Veteran
Jan, the FM3A and the FM2N are still on my bucket list.:bang::bang::bang:
Frontman
Well-known
I don't like to shoot at f/1.2, if you stop the lens down to 1.4, it is sharper than the standard Nikon 50/1.4 AIS. I also like the 9-bladed aperture. At f1.2 I find the lens to be soft.
This has been my experience as well. From f1.4 to about f2.5, I found the 50/1.2 to be sharper than other Nikkor 50s (and a ZF 50/1.4) I've tried. That said, I sold my 50/1.2 and settled for a late serial no. 50/1.4 because my 50/1.4 (I got a good copy!) has 98% of the performance of my now sold 50/1.2 but is much lighter.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
+1 on that. I did get one, and I really like the lens. It was perhaps a little more than I wanted to spend on a lens that that, for me, mounts on a secondary system (I mostly use Canon EOS and M/LTM gear) - but I find it nice enough that I'm using my FM3a, mostly with the Voigtlander 40mm SLII, much more than I thought I might. It's a handy combination that takes photos I like.
...Mike
maclaine
Well-known
Disappointing? In what ways?
My only complaint is seeing the needle in very low light. But then, the F3/T Champagne sucked as well with the goofy little light that was hard to hold and sometimes did not work. I do prefer LEDs for low light but my FE2 is really fun to use.
The viewfinder is actually pretty good, but then I have been looking through the same or similar VF for XXXXX years!
I started a thread about it a while back. I've since changed my mind about a few of the things that bothered me about the camera and manual Nikons in general (seeing as how my primary 35mm camera these days is an F3, which I don't see changing any time soon). However, the two things that bug me the most about the FM3a are still true. Claustrophobic viewfinder that I could never see all of even as a non-glasses wearer, and I don't believe they are worth the amount it costs to own one compared to what it gets you. Yes, the hybrid shutter is nice, and yes it's simple, but the F3 is also very simple if you want it to be. However, it has just enough sophistication for those times when you need it.
I do still miss the multi-spot metering of the OM-4, though, but the 80/20 metering of the F3 has yet to let me down.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
OK, I've finally developed the first ( "test" ) roll from my FM3a! All shot with a 50/1.4 on Neopan 400. I love the way the camera handles, and I can't complain about the results. The honeymoon is definitely NOT over...