Adé FM-D!

[Frank Fremerey]

We already know that film is worse than chip as a recording medium.

So film vs. chip was not the test target in my test when I bought the FM-2 from aerobat, our long time friend in Switzerland.

It was about testing the FM-2, D600, D3 and D500 as cameras in a holistic way using the very same lens, the still astounding and amazing 1.4/35 Ai-S.

A long story made short:

1) FM-2 can not deliver a sharp finder view to many visually impaired users (I only need reading glasses but I need them very hard).

All correction glasses available do not help me. No good finder view means no fast OR precise manual focus.

2) D600 ground glass is very good with some exercise, D3 is soso, D500 is light years ahead when it comes to fast and precise manual focus with the 1.4/35 Ai-S wide open as well as at f=2

Digital has all digital advantages like being able to record  thousands of pictures before you need to change battery and memory cards instead of 36 or with a lot of effort 250. And I have them readily available in minutes.

You get RAW + JPEG, high res, 10 fps for small change and GREAT ERGONOMICS.

Tonight I took a big series, wonderful shots, portraits, people, reportage but I can nearly show zil, because there are people and children in the pictures.

You have to believe me from my test: The D500 is my current MF-champion.

[pluton]

It is unfortunate that none of the Nikon finder diopter solutions worked for you, Frank.
It'd be nice if Nikon would offer a 24x36 camera with the same absolute magnification of the ground glass as the D500 has.
Blowing up the finder image bigger would greatly help manual focus.  It could be offered alongside the standard units that are more suited for AF.
Or, build a flip-in 1.4X(or whatever factor it would have to be) magnifier into the finder optics of the 24x36 D camera.

[Hugh_3170]

Hi Frank, do your reading glasses have prescription lenses, and if so do they have corrections for astigmatism?

My uncle went through a similar process some years ago  with his Pentax ME to what you are going through with your FM-2.  None of the standard Pentax eye pieces suited him.

His optometrist was also a keen photographer and in the end my uncle had him make up a prescription eyepiece for the Pentax.  Problem solved!  Maybe this approach might work for you?

[richardHaw]

try the F3HP

[Frank Fremerey]

Hi Frank, do your reading glasses have prescription lenses, and if so do they have corrections for astigmatism?
My uncle went through a similar process some years ago  with his Pentax ME to what you are going through with your FM-2.  None of the standard Pentax eye pieces suited him.
His optometrist was also a keen photographer and in the end my uncle had him make up a prescription eyepiece for the Pentax.  Problem solved!  Maybe this approach might work for you?

My prescription reading glasses are useless for anything but the very near field. I will not go another step to make the FM-2 compatible with myself. If I was wearing glasses always, another cup of tea of course. Then I would see to shooting her with glasses.


I have a very good solution for shooting my MF glass now, the D500.

And in a few moths time, hopefully, there will be the D850 or D900 or whatever they might call the camera.

IMO the general ergonomics of the D500, esp with MF glass, not only the ground glass and the Diopter adjustment is by far superior than the ergonomics of the FM-2.

My memory, nostalgia, did not serve me well. The FM-2 will go again, I will concentrate on the stuff I really use.

As soon as the D850/D900 arrives the D600 will be fixed to my panorama setup. Color consistency over a huge range of ISO and light sources has, for me, become a very important beloved feature of the current fifth gen cameras. D500 IQ at raised ISO is still inferior to the D600. These files do also not play well with post processing. Beware to take JPEG with the D500 with slightly raised ISO. I have seen some in newspapers, barely barable, nearly unfixable. Too aggresive preprocessing in camera or, if you switch that off, very rough when editing these.

[Les Olson]

1) FM-2 can not deliver a sharp finder view to many visually impaired users (I only need reading glasses but I need them very hard).

I don't understand in that case why the FM2 viewfinder is a severe problem.  It is the standard -1 diopter viewfinder, placing the virtual image at 1m.  The diopter adjustment for the D500 - AFAIK for all Nikon cameras that have diopter adjustment - is -2 to +1, so if the D500 is OK an image at 1m distance should be clear enough to use the split prism.  Could there be a problem with your FM2's viewfinder?   

Viewfinder correction lenses are inexpensive and have the additional advantage that the kibitzers don't borrow your camera and change the settings.  There is a table relating spectacle prescription and viewfinder correction at https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/639/~/viewfinder-diopter-adjustment

[Frank Fremerey]

I bought all the Diopter lenses in question: Original Glass, 0, +1 ... none of these does deliver on fast and reliable manual focus on the ground glass.

Also the split prism is very hard and slow to operate this way.

Next time I am at Nikon, I will ask them to check the VF anyway.

The D500 DOES deliver fast and reliable manual focus, so there is no need. I just have to figure out, if it is possible to assign ISO to the Fn-Button on the MB-D17

Thank You!

[pluton]

The optical variations possible in human vision are nearly infinite.
I find that when attempting to use the diopter adjustment on my D800 cams, the 'best' setting sometimes falls in between two of the preset notches on the adjustment dial.  So, it is entirely credible to me that the 'whole step only'  diopter adjustments that are available on the FM2 may not come close to being adequate for Frank's personal vision requirements.

[bjornthun]

There's a reason why prescriptions can be given in 0.25 diopter steps.

[Hugh_3170]

Maybe that is why the prescrption eyepiece made up for my uncle's Pentax worked so well for him?  His eyepiece corrected for astigmatism IIRC.

He too had little success with the standard eyepieces offerred by Pentax.

There's a reason why prescriptions can be given in 0.25 diopter steps.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thank you, Keith, Hugh, Bjørn!

It might well be that "in between" settings were required for me to operate the FM-2. But after conducting my tests I am so happy with the possiblility my D500 offers, that my motivation to shoot any more film has dropped to nil.

Only question remaining is: Shall I keep the FM-2 for whatever reason or sell her?

[pluton]

There's a reason why prescriptions can be given in 0.25 diopter steps.

And even .25 diopter can be noticeably too coarse of an adjustment.

[Les Olson]

Maybe that is why the prescrption eyepiece made up for my uncle's Pentax worked so well for him?  His eyepiece corrected for astigmatism IIRC.

He too had little success with the standard eyepieces offerred by Pentax.

Uncorrected astigmatism would be a problem when you were trying to see the edges of the image - not good for using a camera because the edges of the viewfinder image is where the metering information is.  It would not effect the centre of the viewfinder image. 

[Les Olson]

And even .25 diopter can be noticeably too coarse of an adjustment.

Yes, it can be, but only in unusual circumstances. 

People under the age of 50 or so have several diopters of accommodation (which is why young people with short-sightedness can wear lenses that correct distance vision and not take them off to read); people older than 50 or so have about two diopters and even at age 70 you have one diopter.  If you are short-sighted (short-sightedness is caused by close work in childhood, such as reading and computer games, so it is getting more common and in 50 years everyone will be short-sighted) and need -1 correction you cannot achieve sharp focus beyond 1m.  If you need -2 correction you cannot achieve sharp focus beyond 0.5m.  So the difference in the limit of sharp focus between -1.25 and -1.5 is 13 centimetres.   That is a small distance relative to the way the world is set up.  Most people read or use the computer at 0.5m or so, look at the viewfinder image at 1m, watch television at 3m or so, and everything else is "distant".  For other things you don't need high visual acuity - the dashboard instruments in your car, or cooking or playing the piano, eg.  Since the line between sharp and not sharp is not sharp 0.25 diopter only makes a difference if you are doing fine work at a distance you cannot adjust, or you are older and have limited accommodation.  Whether using a focusing screen is "fine work" depends - using a split prism needs much less acuity than judging focus on a ground glass, eg, and you don't have to have perfect focus to judge relative focus.

There are few circumstances where an error less than one diopter is worth correcting.  That is why when you have refractive surgery "no longer need to wear glasses or contact lenses" means a residual error less than one diopter. 

[Frank Fremerey]

To free you from speculation. This is my current prescription.