In article <19970409024101.WAA03339@ladder01.news.aol.com>, bandhphoto@aol.com says...

> >in the posts. Some claim that the FM2n has a flash sync of 1/250
>compared to 1/200 for FM2, while others claim that FM2 is also 1/250.
>Granted, 50/1000 of a second difference is not much, but still I would
>like the correct data.
>Are there any prevailing opinions on which is the better camera for
>outdoor conditions such as wildlife photography? Finally, which one
>costs more?>

>The sync on the FM2n is DEFINITELY 1/250. I own three or four. :-)
>According to Moose Peterson'e estimable "Nikon System Handbook," the sync
>on the FM2 = 1/200.
>
>For general outdoor use, I cannot imagine either would outshine the other.
> The FM2 is no longer available new; the FM2n is. Both are probably
>available used. All else being equal, a used FM2n would be priced higher
>than an FM2.

The above is correct, but, as David Rosen has usefully pointed out,
at least some FM2's (not "n's") do sync at 1/250th (though the shutter
speed dial is not marked that way), which simplifies outdoor fill-flash
(since 1/250th is metered for ambient light, and 1/200th is not; and
1/250th is a more useful metered speed than 1/125th when using fill-flash
outdoors). Those FM2's that will sync at 1/250th are equal in useability
to FM2n's, but are likely to be a bit cheaper on the used market...
"Hope This Helps", or, "David Ruether"...;-)