Nikon FM series: What can you tell me?

Scheimpflug · Expire: 2011-11-18

And diopters for the Pentax K & M series bodies are available as well, both factory originals and aftermarket. Wink

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

fish4570 · Expire: 2012-03-21

That's it, Jussi. I don't care much for teles. As for "portraits," I always can get closer with a normal. Anything physically much longer than a prime adds to the tremor issue.
The reasons for a little speed with a moderate wide are more light for focusing ease wide-open, and higher shutter speed. The FM eyepiece looks gigantic compared to the SP's, which leads me to believe the viewfinder is stinking bright ...

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

Paul, the 2 series - FM2 and FE2 - have about a stop or so brighter vf than the FM and FE - but of course aren't compatible with pre-AI lenses, which puts a slight premium on the lens costs.

I'm with you on the teles, my limit is 105mm, with 135 I'm pushing it. So why do I have so many dagnam 135s? I'll have to do a 'test' and then sell or give them away.

I do still suggest the Pentax KX, as with the K mount you at least have a Pentax digital in your future.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Well, there are several posts here I'd like to comment on, but I'll try to keep it brief.

Paul, it is not always a good idea to get closer with a normal lens for portraiture. The reason why portraitists prefer lenses in the 85mm to 135mm range is because they minimize distortion. Even a normal lens will distort a person's features somewhat in a perhaps unflattering manner, albeit to a lesser degree than a wide-angle will. Short teles provide a slight compression effect, which is generally considered to be more flattering (shortens the nose somewhat instead of lengthening it, for example).

My personal favorite for portraiture is the Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, which is a bit too much compression for some folks. But I've just had really good results with mine.

I agree with much of what Nesster posted. The FM's vf may seem to be bright compared to a SP, but it isn't as bright as that in an FM2/FE2. Unfortunately, the FM does not have interchangeable focusing screens. This is one reason why I prefer the FE over the FM. I can install an FE2 focusing screen in my FE and have the same brightness. I also prefer the FE's match-needle metering method, which is very similar to that of the KX and even the Canon FTb. To me, the fact that the FE is battery dependent isn't a significant issue with the type of photography I do. Those button cells last for years, and unless I'm out in sub-freezing temperatures, I've never had issues with battery failure.

Apologies, Nesster, but I think it is silly to continue to boycott Canon for a mount-switch decision they made some 24 years ago. Prior to that Canon made NO changes to their physical mount. Going all the way back to the "R" system of the early 1960s, the mounts are the same -- just the metering methods changed. Compare that to the blizzard of metering method changes that Nikon has made while keeping their F mount, and all the incompatibility issues resulting from this, and honestly I think Canon's direction is the more simple. It's just unfortunate that FD glass cannot be used with EOS, but it can still be used with many excellent FD film cameras. And I take some small amount of comfort in that, since I still enjoy using my old Canon SLRs. And this non-path to digital (except u4/3, of course) may all soon be a moot point anyway with the advent of the Sony NEX series and no-doubt many others to come in the near future.

The Pentax KX has been mentioned a few times. As I mentioned previously, this is my favorite K-mount Pentax. All mechanical, the battery powers the meter only. Match-needle method. Mirror lock-up. Just a very nice, rugged, mechanical camera. About the same size and weight, and equivalent level of features compared to the Canon FTb, which is probably my 2nd-favorite FD Canon. As has been mentioned, the advantage to a KX, besides what I've mentioned above, is the fact that it's K-mount and M42 lenses can be used with adapters. Plus if you go digital Pentax, you can still use your lenses. But this is also true if you go the EOS route, far as that goes.

One of the seldom mentioned advantages to the old Canon FD mount is that one can use adapters for M42, Pentax K, and Nikon F to mount these lenses on FD bodies. I have an M42 and Nikon F adapter that I occasionally use with my FD cameras.

fish4570 · Expire: 2012-03-21

I will check out the KX. I am utterly unfamiliar with it. I was out of the film loop for so long, whole generations of models have gone by ...

fish4570 · Expire: 2012-03-21

Found a KX on the bay with an f4/100mm Pentax macro lens aboard.
Whatcha think?

As for switching to a longer lens for portraits, cool, using a long lens adds to the hand tremors with which I have to deal. A real short tele would be good, but costly. Besides, I don't get THAT close ... Very Happy

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

fish4570 · Expire: 2012-03-21

I Don't use flash, either.
I yam what I yam ... Very Happy

Another thing: I am getting off coffee/caffeine again. I am not supposed to have caffeine anyhow for mitral valve prolapse, so that will remove any caffeine-induced shakes.
My shots have been looking much sharper since I gave up the ultralight Bessa R and went to heavier cameras ...

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Ah yes -- camera weight. That's a subject that people often overlook when camera shake is discussed. I've always been an advocate of heavier gear, believing that its weight damps down jitters that lightweight gear will transmit.

fish4570 · Expire: 2012-03-21

Purr-zackly ...