# Nikon FM, what a joy to shoot!



## gryffinwings (Dec 15, 2018)

So I just recently got my Nikon FM back from being basically refurbed, initially bought it for 30 USD, and spent 83 USD at a repair shop to replace all the seals, the mirror foam bumper and to clean the prism, I think I did pretty well. Shot it will my Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 and Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AI-s, and it was a really nice shooter, it feels so well put together. Today I shot some Kodak Ektar 100, I'm looking forward to seeing how my shots came out.

After my first excursion with my camera, I find that I am definitely lacking enough wide angle. I'm thinking a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 will do well enough for my uses, I think the 105mm f2.5 is enough telephoto for me.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2018)

Congratulations on the FM. The FM was my second favorite Nikon of the 1980s, and I shot mine quite a lot. It's a nice body, since it offers the flip up tab on the automatic indexing follower, which allows one to use pre-AI lenses in stopped-down metering mode. The FM is a great mechanical camera!


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 15, 2018)

Look into the 35mm and / or 28mm E series lenses.

If you want really wide, check out the Tokina 17/3.5 SL.  Can be had for a good price, and über-wide!


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 15, 2018)

Great camera. You’d love a 24mm.


----------



## DarkShadow (Dec 15, 2018)

That's a nice looking Camera.like restoring old cars well worth it.


----------



## compur (Dec 16, 2018)

The FM is one of the greats.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

I purchased my black FM in the late 70’s. I am still using it today.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 16, 2018)

I own both the FM2 and the FM2n, and Nikon hit it out of the park with the FM series.  It has everything I need, and nothing I don't.

The only thing I've found over time, is that they almost seem too lightweight.  I miss the heft of the F2, so I've added MD-12's to both of them.  I like them with my 24mm f/2.8 AIs, and it's probably the widest for wide angle, before I start to get some distortion.  I miss the 105mm f/2.5 AIs that I foolishly sold a couple of years back.  I do have a 105mm f/4 Micro, that's an adequate, for now, substitute.

I like a 50mm f/1.8 or even a 50mm f/2 for a "walk around" lens.

Glad you found one!


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

I added the MD-12 to my FE & FE-2 bodies. Great additions. Perfect grip and counter-balance to my bigger, heavier glass. If you drop lithium batteries in MD-12, it keeps them MUCH lighter. The 105 f/2.5 is a must have lens.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

50mm E glass.


----------



## Peeb (Dec 16, 2018)

$30??  Wow- nice get!


----------



## gryffinwings (Dec 16, 2018)

pendennis said:


> I own both the FM2 and the FM2n, and Nikon hit it out of the park with the FM series.  It has everything I need, and nothing I don't.
> 
> The only thing I've found over time, is that they almost seem too lightweight.  I miss the heft of the F2, so I've added MD-12's to both of them.  I like them with my 24mm f/2.8 AIs, and it's probably the widest for wide angle, before I start to get some distortion.  I miss the 105mm f/2.5 AIs that I foolishly sold a couple of years back.  I do have a 105mm f/4 Micro, that's an adequate, for now, substitute.
> 
> ...



I'm loving the camera, it's fantastic.  The 105mm f2.5 has been great so far, you should definitely get another.



Kiron Kid said:


> View attachment 166944 I added the MD-12 to my FE & FE-2 bodies. Great additions. Perfect grip and counter-balance to my bigger, heavier glass. If you drop lithium batteries in MD-12, it keeps them MUCH lighter. The 105 f/2.5 is a must have lens.





Kiron Kid said:


> View attachment 166945 50mm E glass.



I am definitely wanting to get the MD-12, they aren't too expensive either!



Peeb said:


> $30??  Wow- nice get!



Yeah, it was a good initial cost, ebay is normally 4-5 times the price and you don't know if you are getting a good camera. I spent an additional 83 dollars on seals, mirror bumper, and prism cleaning, and the repair is warrantied for 1 year.  So 113 dollars for essentially a "mint" Nikon FM, I'm thrilled.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 16, 2018)

IMHO, forget the motor drive.
It adds weight and bulk, and it tends to make you to shoot bursts.  Burst shooting is expensive when you are shooting film.  Think $1+ a frame (film and processing).
If you shoot fast moving subjects, then the motor drive has value, otherwise it is just bulk.
Granted it is a nice toy.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

ac12 said:


> IMHO, forget the motor drive.
> It adds weight and bulk, and it tends to make you to shoot bursts.  Burst shooting is expensive when you are shooting film.  Think $1+ a frame (film and processing).
> If you shoot fast moving subjects, then the motor drive has value, otherwise it is just bulk.
> Granted it is a nice toy.



I never turn my MD-12 on. It’s just there for added grip, stability. And with lithium batteries, it adds very little weight.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

Oops. Wrong camera.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 16, 2018)

gryffinwings said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the FM2 and the FM2n, and Nikon hit it out of the park with the FM series.  It has everything I need, and nothing I don't.
> ...



Done!  I found one earlier today on eBay from a Japanese seller.  105mm f/2.5 AI, on the way.  Can't wait!


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 16, 2018)

ac12 said:


> IMHO, forget the motor drive.
> It adds weight and bulk, and it tends to make you to shoot bursts.  Burst shooting is expensive when you are shooting film.  Think $1+ a frame (film and processing).
> If you shoot fast moving subjects, then the motor drive has value, otherwise it is just bulk.
> Granted it is a nice toy.



It does has two settings... one is Single, which fires the shutter once.

I use mine all the time (FM2n) and wouldn't be without it.  Makes the camera MUCH easier to handle as it adds so much more grippable area.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

480sparky said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, forget the motor drive.
> ...



I concur.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 16, 2018)

Get the MD-12. Do not get the MD-11.


----------



## compur (Dec 16, 2018)

Some trivia about the FM:

There were two versions of the FM and no, I don't mean the FM/FM2. The _original_ FM had two versions. The one shown in the OP is the first version with knurled ring around the shutter release button. When a motor drive (MD-11 originally, later the MD-12) was mounted you were supposed to turn this ring to the motor drive position and turn it back when you removed the motor.

Many users weren't aware of this requirement and had trouble with motor drives when using the FM so Nikon revised the camera design to eliminate that ring. So, later FM cameras had a smooth ring that didn't turn and the user didn't have to worry about setting anything when mounting a motor drive.


----------



## gryffinwings (Dec 17, 2018)

For those that mentioned the Nikkor 24mm, I think I might pass on it, heard it wasn't the best wide angle. I'm looking at instead getting the Nikkor 20mm f3.5 ai, heard it was pretty good.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 17, 2018)

The Nikon 24 “f/2.8” is excellent.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 17, 2018)

I've been using  a 24/2.8 since the early 1970s.  Worked just fine for me.  How critical are you?

IMHO going from a 50 to 20 is a heck of a BIG jump in viewing angle.  24 was on the edge of controlabillity for perspective distortion.  Most people stopped at the 28.  That is what the 18-x DX lenses match; 18mm on DX approximates 28mm on FX.  If you get a 20,  you should also get a 35, to bridge the gap between the 50 and the 20.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 17, 2018)

One of the reasons I like the 24 is that it's right on the edge of maintaining straight lines, even when the focus is a bit off axis.  The 20 gets distorted very quickly; only a few degrees off axis and you can see it.  I own the AF-D versions of the 20 and 24 @ f/2.8, and while the 24 isn't always wide enough, it does a great job as my "general" wide angle lens.

I like the 35mm f/2 but it was never wide enough, but seemed more like a "normal" focal length lens.  I scrapped it in favor of the 24mm.  That's just a personal tic.

BTW, there's an individual in a nearby town, who has a 16mm f/3.5 fish eye.  Still considering it, but it's a really specialized tool.  My Tokina 17mm f3.5 has enough distortion.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 17, 2018)

pendennis said:


> One of the reasons I like the 24 is that it's right on the edge of maintaining straight lines, even when the focus is a bit off axis.  The 20 gets distorted very quickly; only a few degrees off axis and you can see it.  I own the AF-D versions of the 20 and 24 @ f/2.8, and while the 24 isn't always wide enough, it does a great job as my "general" wide angle lens.
> 
> I like the 35mm f/2 but it was never wide enough, but seemed more like a "normal" focal length lens.  I scrapped it in favor of the 24mm.  That's just a personal tic.
> 
> BTW, there's an individual in a nearby town, who has a 16mm f/3.5 fish eye.  Still considering it, but it's a really specialized tool.  My Tokina 17mm f3.5 has enough distortion.




  I agree. Going from 50 to 24 is a huge leap. 28 is perfect for many people. I find the 24mm length to be very useful. I also use my 20-40 AF very often. And my 17mm rectilinear doesn’t get much use at all. I believe that the attached snap was in the 20mm range.


----------



## gryffinwings (Dec 17, 2018)

Kiron Kid said:


> The Nikon 24 “f/2.8” is excellent.





ac12 said:


> I've been using  a 24/2.8 since the early 1970s.  Worked just fine for me.  How critical are you?
> 
> IMHO going from a 50 to 20 is a heck of a BIG jump in viewing angle.  24 was on the edge of controlabillity for perspective distortion.  Most people stopped at the 28.  That is what the 18-x DX lenses match; 18mm on DX approximates 28mm on FX.  If you get a 20,  you should also get a 35, to bridge the gap between the 50 and the 20.





pendennis said:


> One of the reasons I like the 24 is that it's right on the edge of maintaining straight lines, even when the focus is a bit off axis.  The 20 gets distorted very quickly; only a few degrees off axis and you can see it.  I own the AF-D versions of the 20 and 24 @ f/2.8, and while the 24 isn't always wide enough, it does a great job as my "general" wide angle lens.
> 
> I like the 35mm f/2 but it was never wide enough, but seemed more like a "normal" focal length lens.  I scrapped it in favor of the 24mm.  That's just a personal tic.
> 
> BTW, there's an individual in a nearby town, who has a 16mm f/3.5 fish eye.  Still considering it, but it's a really specialized tool.  My Tokina 17mm f3.5 has enough distortion.



Yup, definitely having a hard time figuring out which wide angle lens to get now, I think I will make a dedicated thread for it.


----------



## jcdeboever (Dec 18, 2018)

I recently sold mine. Smooth as silk shooting experience. I didn't care for the viewfinder, not 100%, no eye relief, scratched the hell out of my glasses. Other than that, great little shooter.


----------



## gryffinwings (Dec 18, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> I recently sold mine. Smooth as silk shooting experience. I didn't care for the viewfinder, not 100%, no eye relief, scratched the hell out of my glasses. Other than that, great little shooter.



I know what you mean, I used to wear glasses myself until I got lasik.


----------



## shadowlands (Jan 3, 2019)

I love the look! I just got a DF and I love the dials up top!


----------



## Kiron Kid (Jan 3, 2019)

shadowlands said:


> I love the look! I just got a DF and I love the dials up top!
> 
> View attachment 167500



I do not have a digital camera and no desire for one. However, if I were to get one, the Df is the one that appeals to me.

Russ


----------



## gryffinwings (Jan 4, 2019)

Kiron Kid said:


> shadowlands said:
> 
> 
> > I love the look! I just got a DF and I love the dials up top!
> ...



I have a digital, but I am shooting it much less than my film camera these days, I just get that much more enjoyment out of my film cameras.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Oct 19, 2019)

gryffinwings said:


> Kiron Kid said:
> 
> 
> > shadowlands said:
> ...



F3, 35 f/2 lens on T-Max 400 film. 





Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Kiron Kid (Oct 19, 2019)

Kiron Kid said:


> gryffinwings said:
> 
> 
> > Kiron Kid said:
> ...



F3, 35 f/2 glass on Delta 400 film. 





Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------

