In article <3346D743.2B2E@onaustralia.com.au>, garriock@onaustralia.com.au says...

>I'm going on a twelve month motorcycle tour through Central and South
>America starting this summer. I've decided to use manual equipment
>because of the reliability it offers.
>
>I'd like your opinion on whether I should get a Nikon FA when I could
>get two FGs for the same price. The advantages I can see to getting the
>FGs is that if one broke, then I'd still be able to take pictures. Also
>I wouldn't need to change lenses for every second shot, and I can have
>two types of film on the go at once.
>
>What are the advantages of an FA that would outweigh the convienence of
>two FGs?

An FA is easier to hand-hold steady at slow shutter speeds - and has
a DOF preview lever - but 12 months in the wilds is a long time to depend
on just one camera... (and motorcycles are notoriously hard on cameras and lenses [I would suggest making some effort to isolate the camera gear
from vibration]). I would suggest taking two FM/FM2/FM2n's (and a couple
of extra 3-volt lithium cells...). No TTL flash, which the FG and FA
have, but the shutter runs at all speeds without battery power...
Hope This Helps (If all goes well, "HTH" and "Bob Neuman" will
become "David Ruether" - with the advent of
a web page and a new e-mail account...;-)