Manual SLR Camera

When Mr. Gallo says that getting "one" will be "very very hard" I assume he means manual cameras in general. This is unquestionably true as very few companies still make such models.

However, you'll have no problem at all getting an FM-2, it's a current model and any Nikon dealer, online or brick and mortar, will have or can get one.

In your situation I really recommend this over used models, as even when I worked in a camera shop ten years ago repairs were very expensive. I'm sure they haven't gotten cheaper. Plus, factory support for manuals is limited from most companies. Canon, for example doesn't make manual focus lenses anymore. There's tons of used out there, but that's your only option. Go with Nikon first, then consider that a used F2 will cost as much as a new FM-2, and sentimentality aside, the newer camera is superior.

Remember too, I shoot Canon, so this isn't a matter of a Nikon-freak trying to recruit you. I just really believe there's a "best" advice here, and that this is it. :)
 
Originally posted by wesmalo
I'm Canadian, eh.
Click to expand...

They'll ship - but anyway, I'm SURE the same kind of shop exists in Toronto

BTW What part of Canada? 2/3rd of my Mom's side lives in various parts of Canada - Mostly the Welland area, but some in Thunder Bay, and a FEW out in SK

Charlie
 
Originally posted by tortoise
When Mr. Gallo says that getting "one" will be "very very hard" I assume he means manual cameras in general. This is unquestionably true as very few companies still make such models.

However, you'll have no problem at all getting an FM-2, it's a current model and any Nikon dealer, online or brick and mortar, will have or can get one.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Yep, I meant Manual Focus in General - I thought I had pointed out the Nikon option along with the Leica and Contax

Of course, if he's willing to give up on the 35mm part, and go Medium Format....

Charlie (another Canon Manula Focus user - A T-90 and a FTb (NOT a FTbn). I really should look for a used F1)
 
I'm very happy with my Minolta X-370. It does use batteries for the electronic shutter, though (electronic really does give much more accurate timing, and allows for the built-in light meter to be used for shutter speed control).

Autofocus will never replace manual, totally. Auto is simply too imprecise for some work, since you can never quite tell what it will latch on to as a focal point.

--JB
 
Originally posted by e_utopia
...Autofocus will never replace manual, totally. Auto is simply too imprecise for some work, since you can never quite tell what it will latch on to as a focal point.

--JB
Click to expand...

I don't find that to be true with my Canon EOS Elan IIe AF cameras, as they have what is called "Eye-Control Autofocus"...In the viewfinder are 3 AF point icons, and the camera will autofocus on whichever one that your eye is LOOKING AT (after it's been calibrated to YOUR eye(s))...Very QUICK, and VERY precise, AND the square icon in the viewfinder lights-up red to let you know that that is the point that the camera is focusing on. It also has a couple of advanced autofocus lock systems.
 
Even with systems like that (or the simpler systems that many cameras use, where you aim the camera at your focus and light-meter point, push the shutter button half way to lock those on that point, then move to the correct framing), the precision of the measurement, and of the lens movement, often leaves something to be desired. Technology is still a long way away from matching the human ability to focus using that little split window:)

Autofocus is still nice, for fast work. But when I want to take a high-quality photo, I use the SLR, and I'll spend a good bit of time focussing (and choosing the exact point I want to focus on). They each have their uses.

--JB
 
To Charles Gallo - "BTW What part of Canada? 2/3rd of my Mom's side lives in various parts of Canada - Mostly the Welland area, but some in Thunder Bay, and a FEW out in SK - I'm originally from Thunder Bay. I may have gone to school with one of your cousins if you have one named Louie.

I just got back from a visit to T Bay. After living in relative isolation, it was amazing to see all the new products again. That's why I posted the thought of going digital. The options are amazing. Combine that with the fact that I may not be up north for more than another year or so, I am even more confused than when I started.

So, I continue to think over the postings and my options.
 
The most current manual Nikon is the FM3A. It is a great little manual focus camera. It is just like my FE2(no longer mfg.) that has been serving me well since 1983. It has the advantage over the FM2 of having shutter priority if the battery is working. It will operate with zero battery also as the entire FM series will. The FE2 will also operate with zero battery. Neither will give you light meter readings with zero battery.

I live in Florida but spend 2-5 weeks a year in the Canadian mountains climbing and hiking and my Nikon has only failed me once. The FE2 got partially submerged in a river crossing and it would not give me a light meter reading until 4 hours later when it dried out. I have dropped it from 6 ft. twice. The lens cracked both times but the camera is still fine aside from a few dents. It has never failed in sub-zero temps.

The new FM3A has a really cool new 45mm, f2.8p lens that is super small and light. It was made especially for this camera. It works very well.

I hope this helps.

Brett
 
I use a Nikon FM2N which I purchased new two years ago. It has functioned flawlessly and only needs the battery for the light meter. Beware of some internet camera companies, as in all web shopping. I have personally dealt with the following two companies repeatedly and with great success:

www.keh.com

http://www01.bhphotovideo.com/defau...?FNC=StartLink__Aindex_html___SID=EFBE82693C0

My FM2N body was purchased new from b and h photo, and my first lens was purchased in excellent condition from keh, a Nikkor 35mm/f2. Keh uses a fair grading system on their used equipment so you have an accurate representation of what it is you're buying.
 
Nikon FM2 all the way. I've bought it years ago when I became interested in astronomy. If you want to take pictures in cold clear winter nights battery drainage is your worst enemy. The FM2 is independent of the battery.

Also the camera is built like a tank. Absolutely reliable and has all the functions I have ever wanted in a manual SLR.

The Nikon F3 needs the batteries for the fastest shutter times IMHO. But it will work fine without batteries if you can do without 1/4000 etc.

pendentive: good choice! I have the same :)
But sometimes I still look back when I need to take pictures fast.
 
Originally posted by culter
pendentive: good choice! I have the same :)
But sometimes I still look back when I need to take pictures fast.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what you mean...

I miss my old manual days, but having made the switch to digital has literally revolutionalized photography for me.

Much steeper learning curve, but once you get it...Wow!
 
Originally posted by pendentive

I miss my old manual days, but having made the switch to digital has literally revolutionalized photography for me.
Click to expand...

What do you use for your photography?
 
Earlier in the thread I posted a pic of my new Fuji FinePix S602 Zoom. It was tough getting to learn all the tricks, but has been worth every penny. (I paid $581 including s/h)

Here's a good comparison:

With a manual camera, you have to learn exposure, shutter speeds, etc. before you can shoot. But, still, you can pretty much just pick up the camera and start firing away.

With a digital camera (3MP or higher) it's not as simple as just adjusting the aperture or shutter. There are many "tricks" you have to learn to deal with, ie. white balance, file size, autofocus, low light, a menu, etc. These add to the pile of things you have to keep present in your mind while shooting. If you can hack it, go digital. Some can, some can't. I was worried at first that I wouldn't ever pick it up...but now I'm sold 110%.

Advantages to digital?

1. Instead of worrying about how much film I have, I just take as many pictures as I can. It doesn't cost any extra if I shoot 10 or 1000 photos. Just time for the downloading...

2. I can put my pictures straight to the internet. No scanning, no waiting for developing, etc.

3. I can print only the ones I want. No more getting a roll of 36 back and they're all bad except one - you photogs out there know exactly what I'm talking about.

4. I can print them at home on my photo printer.

For anyone that doubts the ability of digital to capture color, etc., look here: http://www.pbase.com/image/1386768

This photo was taken inside a terrarium building at the Washington DC Zoo. There was very little light and I took the picture through the glass. I did not use a tripod and in fact had my 18 mo. old child in my other arm. Any regular ole Joe could have taken the exact same picture - the camera is just incredible.
 
Oops. I should have looked back first. My apologies.

It's an awesome looking camera though.

Though I began wanting a fully manual camera, my thoughts have now really turned to digital. I'll keep it in my parka and try to skip the days that are -40 C.

So my next question. Picture quality. Has anyone compared the picture quality of stills from a video camera to those from a digital camera. By video camera I mean a MiniDV or similar. Surely with the Sony and the Carl Zeiss lens you could get some excellent stills?
 
forgot to mention one thing:

click on the link in my sig. line to the ATS-34 Liner lock to see some photographs that I took with the S602 a few days ago...
 
wesmalo: from what I have seen the stills from digital video cameras are no match for a good digital foto camera. I guess the difference is in the CCD.

pendentive: I didn't mean the time you need to get to know the camera but the time it takes the camera to get ready for a shot and to save the image. The Finepix S602 is really fast for a digital camera but still no match for a traditional SLR. Normally that's not a problem but if you want to take a picture of something that is moving fast like in sports fotography I would still grab my SLR.
 
Originally posted by culter
The Finepix S602 is really fast for a digital camera but still no match for a traditional SLR. Normally that's not a problem but if you want to take a picture of something that is moving fast like in sports fotography I would still grab my SLR.
Click to expand...
That used to be true with the 6900 (earlier model) and many other digital cameras. However, the 602 comes with a burst mode that fires 5 fps up to 25 frames, etc. There are other features I could get into, but really it's not the same as having a long and fast telephoto lens strapped to an SLR. It's a matter of learning a new way of shooting, but you can get results that are getting closer every day. Spend a day at dpreview.com looking through the galleries and you'll see what I mean.

You can't expect a digital camera to behave like an SLR, but if you take the time to learn how to use it, the results can be just as good.

...and keep in mind we're talking about a prosumer camera here. Not a pro series.
 
Originally posted by culter
wesmalo: from what I have seen the stills from digital video cameras are no match for a good digital foto camera. I guess the difference is in the CCD.
Click to expand...
I agree with culter here. The reason is that motion video captures exactly that: motion. Even with digital video, it relies on capturing blurry images so that the eye is tricked into seeing motion, rather than a set of choppy images.

If you need crisp still images, look for a digital camcorder that offers "image bursts". You will only get 30 seconds or so of burst (max), and it will really chew up the battery life, but it will answer you quest.

Now, if you're talking about a camcorder that takes digital stills, then I would explain that it's a matter of features, not lenses. The Carl Zeiss series of lenses is very nice, but most digital camcorders lack the proper controls to make a nice picture. Plus, as culter said, the CCDs are different. The camcorder usually records images at 640 x 480. That makes about 300,000 pixels. Most good digital cameras start at 3,000,000 pixels and some go as high as 6,000,000. So, you can see the difference.
 
Well, the burst mode has a lot of limitations. Can't use the flash for instance. I often take pictures at partys where a flash is essential.

But no need to quarrel. It's an excellent digital camera and I'm happy with it. I'm just saying that there are reasons to keep your old SLR. I'm using both but I'm using my digital camera a lot more often.
 
Originally posted by culter
I often take pictures at partys where a flash is essential. It's an excellent digital camera and I'm happy with it...I'm using both but I'm using my digital camera a lot more often.
Click to expand...
I feel the same. Are you using an external flash?

By the way, anyone that throws away their old K-1000 ought to be shot...:D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top