The FT3 was a much older design than the FM, much larger and heavier, clumsier to operate. The FM is just about identical in operation to the MX.
The FM2n/FM3a derivatives of the FM have pretty much everything you want added to the MX. If Nikon had made a DSLR body that I liked, I would have stuck with my Nikkor AI-S lenses and FM series bodies as complement to the present day.
Godfrey
On May 15, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Graywolf wrote:
No I have never even held a FM. That is why I put in the FT3 comment. I have used and even briefly owned an FT3. I found it to be heavy and clumsey compaired to the Pentax, and immediately, after only a weekend, traded it for an ME Super (no MX was available at the time). OTOH, I do consider the MX to be nearest to the perfect SLR ever made.
I would in fact prefer a match needle to the diodes which are difficult to see in bright sunlight and distractingly bright in dim light (although a dimmer circuit may fix that). I would like a gauge heaver metal for the top and bottom plates. Better seals (the old last forever cloth ones, maybe). And ruggedized a bit to stand up longer without excessive wear, especially with the motor drive. If I were a millionaire I would see about having such an MX-II custom made. I am sure one could sell a 1000 or so a year worldwide, even at the price they would have to sell for.
However at my current income level well used beat up MX's are perfect.
Bruce Dayton wrote:Hello Graywolf, Seems that you haven't used an FM before. Granted, the Nikon size difference is there, but beyond that, they function just about the same. Instead of 5 LED's for the metering, there are three. They use two together for the half stop indicator that Pentax uses a single yellow one. All manual, all mechanical, same shutter speed range, etc. Solid and hefty feel as well.
