FM3a + Voigtlander SL or .. ?

M

Matus

Well-known
Local time
8:40 PM
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
1,837
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 ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
jmilkins said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
^------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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom