Nikon FA vs. FE2??
Nathan Hayward
I am considering buying a general use camera
for my father to replace his 35 yr old fixed
focus manual Kodak. I think that either a
Nikon FE2 or Nikon FA would be suitable cameras,
the FA having more features. They seem to be well
made and in the right price range.
If you have a moment, I'd be grateful for
any feedback about your experiences with
these two camera's.
Please reply to my e-mail.
Thank you!
Nathan Hayward
Neven Andrilovic
discountinued more than ten years ago. Hence, you would have to buy FE2 or
FA as a second hand camera and that could mean a lack of spare parts, etc.
Nikon has just launched something in beetwen, and seems to be a gem, named
FM3A, but pricey.
Why not to experience some modern gadgets, such as F65 or F80 (N65 or N80).
Plenty of electronics but easy to handle, autofocus, etc.
Hope this could help.
Neven Andrilovic
Nathan Hayward wrote in message
<2001Feb15....@ford.earth.ox.ac.uk>...
Ken Rosenbaum
I have both cameras and enjoy using them. I have never had a problem with
either one. If your dad does a lot of manual setting, then I'd go with the
FE2 and its match-needle viewfinder. If he likes a full-program mode, then
it's the FA. Both do aperture-preferred very well, too. I don't think you
can go wrong with either one. Basically, whichever you can get for the
better deal should be the choice. Kind of like the difference between red
delicious and golden delicious apples. Very similar, but there are
differences.
Ken
Nathan Hayward wrote in message
<2001Feb15....@ford.earth.ox.ac.uk>...
Husband and Wife
>I am considering buying a general use camera
>for my father to replace his 35 yr old fixed
>focus manual Kodak. I think that either a
>Nikon FE2 or Nikon FA would be suitable cameras,
>the FA having more features. They seem to be well
>made and in the right price range.
One of my cameras is an FE. If your Dad has had his Kodak for 35 years, chances are good he's over
50, and chances are good his vision, like mine, isn't as sharp as it was.
I'd consider, and ask him to consider, an auto-focus.
He might like it.
You could buy from a store like KEH, where you can buy used, and return it if you don't like it. Or
buy a used and inexpensive auto locally, where they will let you test it for a few days.
Dave
Hello dat123
FA. I know you can buy diopter adjusted eyepieces for the FE so that
your father will not need his reading glasses, if he even uses them.
The FA is a good camera but the matrix-metering of the day was less than
perfect. In fact it was the first ever camera to implement this
technology. The problem with the FA is it gets confused when you take
vertical shots.
"Nathan Hayward" <nat...@earth.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:2001Feb15....@ford.earth.ox.ac.uk...
Tony Polson
> I would go for the FE or FE2. These are simpler and cheaper than the
> FA. I know you can buy diopter adjusted eyepieces for the FE so that
> your father will not need his reading glasses, if he even uses them.
> The FA is a good camera but the matrix-metering of the day was less than
> perfect. In fact it was the first ever camera to implement this
> technology. The problem with the FA is it gets confused when you take
> vertical shots.
Only if it is in the hands of an unthinking user.
Two FA bodies were the mainstays of my outfit for several years. I
learned when to trust the "matrix" metering and when not. It was easy
either to apply exposure compensation or to change to centre-weighted
metering and take a more selective metering.
Or you could even switch to metered manual ... now there's a
revolutionary idea!
Did you get my email about focusing screens for your F4?
--
Tony Polson
shag
<dat...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
>
> The problem with the FA is it gets confused when you take
>vertical shots.
>
How so? I've been using my FA since I bought it in 1986. But, then again, I
could be compasating and just never noticed it.
Shag
Mark Bergman
"shag" <shagl...@aol.comhithere> wrote in message
news:20010218024508...@nso-mq.aol.com...
Carl Valle
with a E series 50mm you can get this under $100, its small and really cool
because it has a nikon F mount..............
Nathan Hayward <nat...@earth.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:2001Feb15....@ford.earth.ox.ac.uk...
Rubberhood
dark and the self-timer facility tends to have a mind of its own, after old
age sets in - it tends to start counting down before you even touch the
shutter.
"Carl Valle" <cwv...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:PKdk6.27$AQ1....@nnrp3.sbc.net...
Hello dat123
news:iiop8t0lk7mmm3kjk...@4ax.com...
> "Hello dat123" <dat...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would go for the FE or FE2. These are simpler and cheaper than
the
> > FA. I know you can buy diopter adjusted eyepieces for the FE so
that
> > your father will not need his reading glasses, if he even uses them.
> > The FA is a good camera but the matrix-metering of the day was less
than
> > perfect. In fact it was the first ever camera to implement this
> > technology. The problem with the FA is it gets confused when you
take
> > vertical shots.
>
> Only if it is in the hands of an unthinking user.
>
> Two FA bodies were the mainstays of my outfit for several years. I
> learned when to trust the "matrix" metering and when not. It was easy
> either to apply exposure compensation or to change to centre-weighted
> metering and take a more selective metering.
IMHO, a spot-meter is a must.
> Or you could even switch to metered manual ... now there's a
> revolutionary idea!
>
> Did you get my email about focusing screens for your F4?
YES, I replied giving thanks. I guess you didn't get the e-mail. Many
thanks [again] for the info.
Regards,
DAT
Tony Polson
> > Did you get my email about focusing screens for your F4?
>
> YES, I replied giving thanks. I guess you didn't get the e-mail. Many
> thanks [again] for the info.
You're welcome!
Best regards,
--
Tony Polson