FM3a + Voigtlander SL or .. ?

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/62226537@N02/5734791899/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/62226537@N02/5735340394/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/jimsedgley/5716547818/sizes/l/in/pool-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_ryan/5630016668/in/set-72157626369989055

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.
 
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?
 
It is all much of a muchness. In practice, if you use them properly, you will not be able to tell the difference in results between Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax or any other mainstream manual focus SLR. I use both Nikon and Olympus SLRs and both systems are capable of producing fantastic results. I particularly like Olympus SLRs (I have OM-1's and OM-4ti's) because of their small size and because high quality Zuiko lenses are very cheap used. Nikons are larger, more rugged but considerably more expensive, even used, partly because the name attracts a premium.

If I was starting again in manual focus film, I would probably be looking at buying into cheap and cheerful gear from Olympus, Pentax or Canon FD, where I could be reasonably confident of getting a working body and three or four good prime lenses for about £250 or thereabouts.

Edited to add:

In fact, I just checked and on a UK based used dealer's site - which I trust and buy from regularly - I could buy an Olympus OM-2n with 28/3.5, 50/1.8 and 135/3.5 Zuikos, all in EX++ condition, for £153. A Pentax ME Super or a Canon A-1 kit would be much the same. A used FM-3a body only is likely to be around double that at least.
 
Last edited:
Matus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Simply buy a really nice om2n from wherever, and then send it into john from camtech (www.zuiko.com) and he will make it new for you - then you don't have any worries about the body.

As for glass, the OM primes are very very highly regarded - pretty much all of them, but especially the wides. There's a fantastic 18mm f3.5, a world beating (and tiny) 21mm f2, a cheaper (but no optically worse) 21mm f3.5, a fantastic 24mm f2, a best in class 28mm f2 etc.
A lot of canon digital guys adapt the 18mm and 21mm's to their full frame dslr's because optically they're generally at least on par or better than canon L zooms, and they're tiny.

Otherwise, the late 50mm f1.4's are very good (better than the equiv nikkors), the 85mm f2 macro is very good, and the 90mm and 100mm f2's are superb.
 
As you mentioned Contax...

I use a Contax Aria for film. I like it because it is small and light, uses comparatively recent tech and matches my Contax G2 in many of its controls. Some of the older Contax bodies are bargains because they look scruffy due to the leatherette yet can be rescued cheaply with a new finish. The lenses are superb, but thanks to their adaptability for use on DSLRs they cost a lot more than most manual lenses. Yashica bodies/lenses are a mix and match alternative that can bring the price down considerably (not used them, but I hear very good things of certain lenses and average things about others).


I view my Contax stuff as luxury equipment that is worth more to me than similar cameras because I love using it. Unless you harbour similar desires for Contax or a similarly pricey system (such as Leica) I would recommend instead Olympus, Canon FD, Pentax or Nikon. As Ade-oh said, there is little difference in quality of results. Pick them up and play. Then decide which you would like to use most and go for that.
 
You really got me thinking about the OM system. I started to check prices - the OM2n are indeed very cheap. Being located in Germany it would be a bit complicated to send the camera for a CLA to US, but I guess there would be some places in EU too.

Would you go for OM4Ti instead the OM2n? It is newer and has multi-spot metering, but of course also costs more.

The OM lenses - in particular the wide ones are not cheap at all - I started to scout the prices. The 21/3.5, 24/2.8 are very interesting (the 21/2.0 is probably just toot expensive). I am thinking of a 3 lens set - 21/35/85 or 24/35/85 or there about. I have seen excellent photos from the 90/2.0 macro lens but it is heavy and quite pricey. Actually - how are the 35mm OM lenses? Not so many of them out there it seems.

I tried to check the Contax system, but the 21/2.8 is hard to find large and expensive. Like most Contax lenses after all ;)

Once I get a better idea about the OM system prices I will compare to Nikon. There the VC 20/3.5 and 40/2.0 lenses are the main attraction for me.
 
Matus said:
You really got me thinking about the OM system. I started to check prices - the OM2n are indeed very cheap. Being located in Germany it would be a bit complicated to send the camera for a CLA to US, but I guess there would be some places in EU too.

Would you go for OM4Ti instead the OM2n? It is newer and has multi-spot metering, but of course also costs more.

The OM lenses - in particular the wide ones are not cheap at all - I started to scout the prices. The 21/3.5, 24/2.8 are very interesting (the 21/2.0 is probably just toot expensive). I am thinking of a 3 lens set - 21/35/85 or 24/35/85 or there about. I have seen excellent photos from the 90/2.0 macro lens but it is heavy and quite pricey. Actually - how are the 35mm OM lenses? Not so many of them out there it seems.

I tried to check the Contax system, but the 21/2.8 is hard to find large and expensive. Like most Contax lenses after all ;)

Once I get a better idea about the OM system prices I will compare to Nikon. There the VC 20/3.5 and 40/2.0 lenses are the main attraction for me.
Click to expand...

Having used both an FM3a and an OM-4, I would say go for the OM-4. It's a hair smaller, the viewfinder is ENORMOUS compared to the FM3a, and the multi-spot metering is incredible, worth the price of admission alone. I had a 24/50/135 setup, along with a 2x extender for the 135mm. I sold the camera and all but the 50mm lens a while back, and I definitely regret it. I had the FM3a with a 50mm f/1.8 for a while, and sold it with no regrets, since I didn't think it stacked up to the OM-4. The FM3a has a few advantages (the hybrid shutter, faster top speed), but in total, I feel the OM-4 is a better camera.
 
F3HP and all Nikkor lenses. Cheap and wonderful! And what a finder! And that camera, unlike the FM or FE sees the WHOLE frame. Why shoot SLR if you can't frame precisely. WYSIWYG!
 
Last edited:
Matus said:
You really got me thinking about the OM system. I started to check prices - the OM2n are indeed very cheap. Being located in Germany it would be a bit complicated to send the camera for a CLA to US, but I guess there would be some places in EU too.

Would you go for OM4Ti instead the OM2n? It is newer and has multi-spot metering, but of course also costs more.

The OM lenses - in particular the wide ones are not cheap at all - I started to scout the prices. The 21/3.5, 24/2.8 are very interesting (the 21/2.0 is probably just toot expensive). I am thinking of a 3 lens set - 21/35/85 or 24/35/85 or there about. I have seen excellent photos from the 90/2.0 macro lens but it is heavy and quite pricey. Actually - how are the 35mm OM lenses? Not so many of them out there it seems.
Click to expand...

I would go for the OM-4ti (not the OM-4) above the OM-2n and there are plenty of places in Europe to get them CLA'd.

Zuiko lenses are much more expensive than they were a couple of years ago, but still cheap compared to similar Nikons (or Zeiss, or Leica R). I got a 21mm/3.5 OM Zuiko on Ebay less than a month ago for £111.

Having said which, you will find similar deals on many comparable cameras and lenses from Pentax, Canon etc, but they won't have that delightful Maitani OM-system design philosophy in their DNA.
 
You can get a Nikkormat FT2 with a 50mm lens for under $100. All manual, tough like an F. The lenses that are non-AI people almost give away on craigslist. You can find a good lens on a camera super cheap if you look around; be it nikon, canon, or olympus. At the low price of like $40 for a 50mm to a body you might as well go with whatever you find first.

There is an OM1 at my local camera shop for under $100 with a 50mm. They also have a bunch of Olympus lenses for sale for it. Unfortunately no Macros. Prices at my local place are pretty darn good except some consignment stuff is too high. They are competitive if not better priced than thrift stores here for average equipment (K1000, A-1, XD-700, etc).
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I read a bit on the OM lenses and got surprised by not too flattering comments about the 32/2.0 which would probably be my main lens (my most used focal length). It seems that every camera producer has at least one great 50 lens, but what about the 35?

So - what system would you choose if 35/2.0 (or faster, 40mm woud be OK too) lens would be the most important one in the line for you?
 
Actually, my Zuiko 35/2 is a super lens. At least as good as the 28/2 I used to have. Have no fear (I do have a late copy - not sure if this matters).

The other lens you might consider is the OM 40/2. A bit expensive, but well recognized across the board.

Roland.
 
Matus said:
Thanks. I read a bit on the OM lenses and got surprised by not too flattering comments about the 32/2.0 which would probably be my main lens (my most used focal length). It seems that every camera producer has at least one great 50 lens, but what about the 35?
Click to expand...

It's a terrible lens if you shoot test charts, but it works fine in the real world when it isn't at full aperture all the time.

But if you are interested in buying expensive trophy equipment, Olympus OM is not the system for you.
 
One more vote for the CV 40mm and Nikon. The 40mm is my ideal lens, perfect focal length, small, fast enough and extremely sharp.

I have used it on my EM, FM, FE and FM2.

Of these the FM is in the best shape and counts as my favourite camera. You will be able to find one for a very small sum.
 
Old Nikon f2 (1.4 is like $600) 35mm lenses costs a similar price to the OM f2 35mm.

If you ever want to do macro go Nikon, save yourself $400 on a 55mm Macro.

The CV is cheaper than the OM.

Funny... breaking it down to dollars. The optics between the two are negligible to me.
 
Last edited:
Matus said:
Thanks. I read a bit on the OM lenses and got surprised by not too flattering comments about the 32/2.0 which would probably be my main lens (my most used focal length). It seems that every camera producer has at least one great 50 lens, but what about the 35?

So - what system would you choose if 35/2.0 (or faster, 40mm woud be OK too) lens would be the most important one in the line for you?
Click to expand...

Internet law definitely puts a stigma around the 35mm f2 OM, but every single person who I've heard from that actually has the lens says that it's actually a good lens. There's definitely a couple of guys here on RFF who have said that the 35mm f2 is better than it's reputation...

Either way, there's also the OM 40mm f2 which has a massive reputation, and voigtlander also made the SL series 1 40mm f2 for OM mount which you can sometimes find on ebay.

I would personally grab the 35mm f2 - I doubt very much that you'd be dissapointed.
 
Although not your main question it's related: don't give up on projection of 6x6. Slides are my main film for colour and I project both 35mm and 645 - the latter using a Leitz Prado Universal. They can be found on *bay, that's where I got mine. I haven't been tracking prices but I noticed that even the Hasselblad 6x6 had dropped in price significantly from a few years ago. Mounts are still available. Projectors larger than 6x6 (not a problem for you) are rare and significantly more expensive.

Since getting rid of my 35mm slr's a few years ago I've also sometimes considered getting one. Although I had Canon's I'd go Nikon. If manual: FM2n. If some automation: FE. As a secondary system, these are inexpensive; you don't have a lot of shelf money if you end up using your Mamiya most of the time.

Steve

Steve
 
If you want to shoot color transparencies, i would imagine the Contax lenses would give you some very impressive results. I've had the RX, Aria, and 159mm. Loved the first two cameras. Contax camera design is fantastic. The lenses are also fantastic.

I've had Nikons, too. F4, F100, F6, FE2, F80. I currently have the FE2 and F100. I love the FE2, except that it doesn't have 'exposure lock' with a half-press of the shutter release, as i'm used to. That feature would be the only reason i sometimes think about changing to an FM3a, but i don't like the $600+ prices the FM3a commands. You can, of course, use an F100 with manual lenses. The focusing screen isn't as snappy for that purpose as on a fully manual focus camera, but it's fine. I've been using the FE2 and F100 sharing only one lens for the past two years: the lowly 50mm 1.8 Series E, which i absolutely love. It's tiny and renders in B&W better than any other lens i've tried. I love the Contax 50/1.4 Planar, but the Series E at 2.8 is everything i've always wanted.

I mostly shoot B&W with film now, but as i said - if i was going to shoot color slide film, i'd want the Contax/Zeiss combination.
 
I shot mainly Nikon for a long time and used the 35mm f/2 AIS more than any other lens. From f/5.6 there are not a lot of better lenses out there, but it barrels a bit and it is not terrific when shot wide open or even at f/2.8. The 28/2 AIS, 28.2.8 AIS, and C-V 40 are all considerably stronger performers.

If it's gotta be a 35, instead of a 28 or a 40, I'd seriously consider getting a nice user 35 Summicron R, and a used R4 or R5 body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom