Talk:Nikon FM2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is wrong to call the Nikon compact F-series SLRs "professional" (or even, as contributer 4.240.247.238 calls them, "semi-professional") level cameras. While it is certainly true that many professional photographers did purchase and use Nikon compact F-series SLRs for their work, this is not a necessary AND sufficient condition to call a camera "professional" level. After all, working professional photographers have purchased and used point-and-shoot cameras in specific circumstances, but no one has ever called a P/S a "professional" camera.

The Nikon compact F-series SLRs are rightly called "advanced amateur" level SLRs, because, by Nippon Kogaku's own standards, that was what they were. They may have been more ruggedly built and had more extensive accessory systems than advanced amateur SLRs from competing brands, but the compact F-series did not meet Nippon Kogaku's long-standing 150,000 minimum picture cycles before breakdown benchmark, were not moisture and dustproofed, were not eligible for Nikon professional field services and did not have the interchangeable viewfinder heads of Nikon F-series professional level SLRs.

I have removed contributer 4.240.247.238's most extravagant or irrelevant claims from his/her paragraph: "The FM2/FM2n is built to as standard of worksmanship unheard of in most 35mm or digital SLR cameras found today. ..."

It is deliberate puffery, because of qualifiers like "some" and "most" and specious omissions. Although I have little doubt that the FM2 is capable of attaining "the summit of Mount Everest and the depths of the Saharan Desert", if he/she intends them as examples of extraordinary feats of strength, he/she needs to include the "reports from repair shops and magazine surveys" as reference. In any event, they are not so extraordinary. I can think of many other film cameras tough enough to do the same: the Canon New F-1, EOS-1, EOS-1N; Hasselblad 500C/M, 500EL/M; Leica M2 to M7 (excluding the M5); Minolta Maxxum 9; Nikon F, F2, F3, F5, F6, FE2, FM3A; Olympus OM-3T, OM4T; and Pentax LX do not make an exhaustive list. The FM2 is only remarkable in that it is not a professional level SLR (its spartan design helps - there is little to break). Also, while it is true "Nikons have accompanied more photographers to extreme environments", contributer 4.240.242.185 does not say that the FM2 has made it to Everest or the Sahara. It is Nikon's professional F-series past market share dominance that makes it true.

Contributer 4.240.247.238 is also wrong to say the Nikon FM2 "sold very well." The FM2's sales figures of (I believe) one million units over 19 years are dwarfed by the contemporary highly electronic (though far less durable) Canon AE-1 Program's four million units in five years. Yes, the FM2 dominated its market niche, but it was a very small niche.

References

• Anonymous. "Nikon F3: Successor to Nikon F2 and F" pp 80-86. Modern Photography’s Photo Buying Guide '85. reprint from Modern Photography, June 1980.
• Anonymous. Nikon SLRs (FA, FE2, FG, FM2, F3HP) advertisement. "Some of the world’s greatest photographic achievements haven’t been photographs." pp 56-57. Modern Photography, Volume 47, Number 12; December 1983. [The exact term used by Nikon Inc. (USA) in this advertisement to describe the level of the FA, FE2 and FM2 is "serious amateur."]
• Anonymous. Nikon USA 11 January 2006 press release "Reshaping Nikon's Film Camera Assortment" http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl? ACCT=130907&TICK=NIKON&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004247596&EDATE=Jan+11,+2006 retrieved 22 February 2006 [The exact term used by Nikon Inc. (USA) in this press release to describe the serious non-professional photographer is "dedicated amateur."]

Paul1513 19:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

rv: (agenda pushing by Canon fanatic) -Tim 3 AUG 2006

Most pros I knew (pre-digital age) carried an FM2 as a sturdy mechanical backup in case their battery-run cameras would fail. Don't know if that qualifies it as "professional" or not, but certainly many pros used them for more serious work than the point and shoot comment you made. I used them for years as a photojournalist. 66.57.225.77 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)