ZI vs Nikon FM3A

[kshapero]

Well lets do a little comparison. I have both, so which is best?
ZI:
Quiet, no mirror slap.
Allows shooting at slower speeds
More expensive - Used around $1050
Lenses smaller 39mm-46mm width

FM3A:
Less expensive - used around $500
Wider selection of lens sizes due to SLR VF
Built like a tank but still small and light.
All speeds work without batteries but still has aperture preferred.
Lenses are typically 52mm wide or wider.
TTL Flash

Anything else? Of course RF's have the intangibles, but the FM3A is mighty nice.

Any thoughts?

 

[Pablito]

Any thoughts?

Nahh...you summed it up.

 

[Pablito]

FM3A:

Lenses are typically 52mm wide or wider.

the filter size, not the focal length.

Which is better?
Which is better, hot dogs or hamburgers?

 

[Doug]

They're both best if you have them. 😀

 

[fixbones]

I have an FE2 which i use alongside the ZI and i think they complement each other really well. I tend to use the SLR more for colour as i can use my polarizer and grad NDs with the SLR.

However i don't think the ZI is a lot more 'silent' compared to my FE2 or the FM3a and i agree the FM/FE are great cameras

 

[jonmanjiro]

I have both these cameras. No question in my mind that the FM3A is the better built camera (though the ZI does what its supposed to just fine). If only it was possible graft a ZI finder onto an FM3A base ... that would be the PERFECT rangefinder for me!

 

[back alley]

where do you come up with these questions...

 

[kshapero]

where do you come up with these questions...

Saturday night, hangin' out, talking trash.

 

[Keith]

where do you come up with these questions...

I was thinking the same thing ... but what the hell, it's Sunday! (here) 😀

Sorry ... but I'm going to compare my ZI to my OM-2 because I don't have the Nikon.


finder ... not only is the finder/frame on the OM big and bright like the Ikon it's accurate instead of almost accurate!

AE function (metering) ... easier to control than the Ikon because it's center weighted and not that crazy down to left bias that the Ikon's metering pattern uses.

shutter sound ... Oly definitely has the SLR 'shluurp' but the Ikon's sound is sharper and would carry as far IMO.

weight and handling ... the OM is smaller and feels much the same weight to me.

battery dependency ... yes both cameras!

value for money ... no comparison, for the price of a used Ikon I can have the Olympus dream kit with all the Zuiko glass I'll ever need!

street cred ... definitely the Ikon, it's a 'rangefinder' doncha know! :angel:

 

[kshapero]

Not to start an evil SLR war but I find the Nikon FM3a a sturdier rig to the OM series. But I do love that OM-4ti.

 

[Keith]

I agree the OM is a bit of a lightweight thoroughbred more prone to the odd fetlock injury ... the FM is more of the dependable draft horse type! :angel:

 

[Debusti Paolo]

The fm3a is a great camera!buy it!🙂 than you can consider a contax g2 (little jewel) or a leica m camera & lens (very expensive) 🙂.Next step will be in MF !!we know it because we spent so much money.......😀

 

[mfogiel]

You have forgotten, that it is easier to use filters for B&W on a ZI, because you are not forced to look through them... Anyway, I use the FM3A for closer up work or from 85mm on and ZI for the street and anything equal or shorter than 50mm. They are both superb tools.

Here they are, both with the Zeiss 35mm lenses.

And a couple of "typical application photos"...

FM3A+25/2.8 Distagon ZF

ZI + 35/1.2 Nokton

 

[chippy]

Not to start an evil SLR war but I find the Nikon FM3a a sturdier rig to the OM series. But I do love that OM-4ti.

not to start one either but i respectfully disagree. i really like the fm3a, a lot for various reasons, but the early OM's are every bit as good, or rather the fm3a is good because the Om was first (but the OM's are often long in the tooth, so they can seem worn or fragile if it has some miles on it, when you get a fm3a well worn it would be a much better comparison), OM's were built to pro standards and 100 000 + shutter actuations, the fm3a IMO does sound louder and clunkier though which kinda makes it sound tougher, also the feel is bigger. the later OM 3ti (closer vintage to the fm3a) is probably a better comparison and IMO is hands down, no question, the more sturdy of the two (which is saying something considering how good the fm3a is), its weather sealed for instance but the fam3a is built to a lesser standard and is not weather sealed

 

[italy74]

Marek
I guess we're all envying you, 🙂 🙂 🙂
However the answer is exactly as you said: BOTH, each one for a different kind of work.

 

[Photon42]

You have forgotten, that it is easier to use filters for B&W on a ZI, because you are not forced to look through them... Anyway, I use the FM3A for closer up work or from 85mm on and ZI for the street and anything equal or shorter than 50mm. They are both superb tools.

Here they are, both with the Zeiss 35mm lenses.
[...]

The Zeiss 25 definitely looks like a large lens compared to its Nikon counterparts. OK - in the picture it is set to 0.4m, but nevertheless ...
Sometimes I think I should get one. I like btw your second image (coffee cup)

Ivo

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

No contest! - the Nikon is a far more usefull/versatile tool!🙂
Dave.

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

That FM3A... I have one in local classifieds for the half of what they usually go for on ebay. Makes me... errr... think. I am used to be OM person, and OM4ti with zuiko glass satisfy me needs and taste. So why it's so tempting?

 

[kshapero]

great shots mfoigel.
Yes both have their great strengths.

 

[Roger Vadim]

No contest! - the Nikon is a far more usefull/versatile tool!🙂
Dave.

Yes! but I'll take the F3, it is soo smooth...😛