Give me reason not to buy a used Nikon FM2 in very good condition?

Give me reason not to buy a used Nikon FM2 in very good condition?

I have been wanting a FM3a for the longest time, but couldn't justify the cost... but the FM2 will do too, but no TTL flash kind of suck~

You won't use it.

hmm.... anything else?

Awesome camera, just sold mine due to the fact I bought a rangefinder. The only reason for not buying a film camera is developing film, either at home or at a lab. I have like 30 rolls of B&W film I need to develop. Aside from that, film is fun to shoot.

+1 for you'll never use it. Photography is only fun when you're actually taking pictures, and the convenience of quality DSLR technology has spoiled us.

These are my though as well! I wanted a camera for the "walk in the park", for the love of photo, but not the digital stuff that can take hundreds of shoot with a simply click of a button...

For more serious, i will probably stick with my d50...

psssst. You won't use it.
I've got a fantastic Asahi Pentax II collecting dust loaded with a roll of C41 B&W. It's smaller than the FM2, and feels buttery smooth to handle. But film sucks. I pull out the 2 megapixel Coolpix 800 more often than the Pentax.

Film does not "suck". Digital still can't beat the film when it comes to black and white. There's a certain "look" about B&W film that digital just can't replicate easily. Color slide film, like Velvia 50 is also still spectacular and hard to duplicate digitally.


I say if you're going to shoot B&W or color slide, use it. If you're planning on loading something silly like color negative film, forget it.

Keep in mind the additional costs of developing and printing from film too.

Originally Posted by robbiex1

Keep in mind the additional costs of developing and printing from film too.

And time
and travelling costs
and the unpredictability of a poor developer
and how well the chemicals were mixed that hour
and how good the technician is

No thanks.

That's why film sucks

Give me RAW processing anyday over a little bit of dynamic range. It gives me complete creative, experimental and artistic control.

CameraBill, that's why you develop B&W yourself. You control the development and printing process. Just like digital, you control the process and your results are as good as your skill and effort.

Film does not "suck" and perhaps you should get better-informed before making ill remarks. If you've ever read Ansel Adam's series of books (the negative, camera, print, etc.), you'd understand that film is extremely versatile and can still exceed digital's dynamic range quite easily right now. There's a certain look about negative B&W film that digital just can't replicate, no matter how expensive your gear is.

I own mostly digital (D200, D70), but I still do have a F80 and some B&W film. I love using it and someday I'd love to get a medium format B&W system for B&W photography....

Originally Posted by robbiex1

CameraBill, that's why you develop B&W yourself. You control the development and printing process. Just like digital, you control the process and your results are as good as your skill and effort.

I'm 100% in agreement here.

Film does not "suck" and perhaps you should get better-informed before making ill remarks. If you've ever read Galen Rowell's series of books (the negative, camera, print, etc.), you'd understand that film is extremely versatile and can still exceed digital's dynamic range quite easily right now. There's a certain look about negative B&W film that digital just can't replicate, no matter how expensive your gear is.

You're thinking of Ansel Adams -- the famous American landscape photographer who made all those famous B&W images of Yosemite Nat'l Park. Galen Rowell was a mountain climber and nature photographer who used to write magazine columns and also had a few great books ("The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography", "Mountain Light", etc.) He shot 35mm slide film almost exclusively. He died in a plane crash a few years ago.

I own mostly digital (D200, D70), but I still do have a F80 and some B&W film. I love using it and someday I'd love to get a medium format B&W system for B&W photography....

I have a Nikon D70s as well as a whole bunch of film cameras, including a Rolleiflex. I shoot mostly B&W and develop it myself, scanning the negatives at home. When it comes to B&W, digital wins hands-down for convenience and speed, but film is way on top when it comes to the smooth rendition of tonal transitions and overall detail in the image (especially with the Rolleiflex, due to the large negative it makes).

Colour is a different story -- digital is more than competitive with 35mm film in this department, especially when processing costs are added in. I rarely shoot colour film in this format anymore, and use the D70s instead for this purpose (vacation and travel photography). However, colour film in the Rolleiflex definitely has a quality edge over digital, in my experience.

The FM2 is a great camera and worthwhile if you plan to get some nice manual-focus Nikkor lenses for it (especially true wide-angles, for which the digital equivalents are expensive and slow) and shoot good home-processed B&W or quality colour slide film. If it's just for snapshots, it's probably not worth it.

I would add that medium-format experience is a great thing for any film photographer to have. There are good deals these days on Yashicamats, Rolleicords, and related cameras. If you're in the GTA, the place to look is either at one of the Toronto International Camera Shows (used camera fairs at the Thornhill Community Centre at Bayview and John -- there was one this past Sunday) or at "The Big One" -- the camera fair put on by the PHSC twice a year at the Soccer Centre in Woodbridge.

Originally Posted by CameraBill

Give me RAW processing anyday over a little bit of dynamic range. It gives me complete creative, experimental and artistic control.

A little bit of dynamic range? Shadow and highlight detail with digital is still pretty far from even approaching film's dynamic range. Your Coolpix 800 at ISO400? It is just a colourful, blotchy mess with most fine details blown away. It is so easy to say digital "sucks" with those points in mind.

Telling the guy "You won't use it" is a terribly ignorant (and damaging) thing to say. Any real photo enthusiast will embrace the two differing formats for what they are and what they're good for.

OP, how much will you be paying for that FM2?

The FM 2 was the first SLR camera I used. I recall spending many a time in the darkroom smelling like the damn fix developing my images. I can remember the sound of the dials adjusting the speed of the film, the F. Stop, setting the focal length, the smoothness of the lens focus. All those little things that are gone with today's digital era.

There is an art to developing and making your own pictures which is lost in todays digital mode. As others said, one can click 1000 pics and keep the ones they want with the digital camera. In film, it is about composition, light, balance, something which many seem to forget in this day and age.

I have a digital now and considering going the D80 route with a few VR lenses (yes its not cheap), but the passion of photography is what got me into it 20 years ago, and it still sticks with me.

2000fordfocus, I can't give you reason not to buy this camera. It is a nice unit, and will give you good results.

I think I may save up to get something like this one day:
http://www.leica-camera.co.uk/photography/m_system/m8/

JHW, whoops, thanks for catching the mistake. Yes, it's Ansel Adams' series of books. It's been awhile since I read them. I don't know how I got Rowell and Adams mixed up.