Godfrey, the Nikon FM has 93% coverage and .86x magnification, which is
distinctly inferior to the MX's 97% coverage and .95x magnification
(which is actually more coverage and as much or more magnification than
any non-F body from Nikon, the closest for coverage being the F100 at
96% [albeit .76x magnification]. Of course, as a glasses-wearer you may
find the MX to have too much magnification (I myself cannot stand the F3
HP finder, but I love the higher magnification non-HP finder). My MX is
also at least as bright as my old F90x's finder, which is as bright or
brighter than the FM2.
-Adam
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Don,
I dunno what you're looking at, but I owned and worked with Nikon FM/
FE2 cameras for 20 years.
The FM2/FE2 have interchangeable focusing screens that are 1 stop
brighter than the FM, and the FM is on par with the MX as far as my
eye can tell, both for brightness and for magnification/eye relief.
(I fitted the FE2 "E2" screen to my FMs so mine were brighter than
the MX.)
I always found the magnification and eye-relief a bit too much ...
the F3/T's HP finder with a little less magnification suited my eyes/
glasses better.
Godfrey
On Dec 31, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Don Sanderson wrote:
I bought the FM, to have something to use them on.
Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place
on an ME Super body.
Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM
the view was amazing. Actually:
T'was a beautiful thing!
