I'm after a Nikon FM3A, I think if I can a bit bigger than the Ricoh and have the flexibility of lenses. Does every1 agree?
Eiger, your question isn't very clear. So maybe if you explain what you really did mean?
If you were comparing a Ricoh to a Nikon FM3A, then the only one I can think of that's comparable, is the Ricoh KR-5 Super II. The Nikon FM series were/are famous for being operable without batteries. Batteries are of course needed for metering, but the FM, FM2/FM2n, and FM3A would still take images even if the batteries had been removed, or had expired. A back up mechanical relective/incident meter would solve any such problems though.
The Nikon series of lenses is unsurpassed, and really only challenged by Canon in the amount of variety, and excellence of quality. There is no other system set-up that matched Nikon in the pre-digital age.
Since you've mentioned a mechanical camera (with aperture priority), then let me mention the competitors.
Olympus OM3 - Manual only, but extremely well made, and highly sought after.
OM1 / OM1n - David Bailey used this. Did him no harm. Manual only.
Leica R6 / R6.2 - Overpriced for what they are, but they have a die-hard following.
Pentax MX - Small and well regarded.
Pentax K1000 - Still used by some students to hone their skills and knowledge.
Contax S2 - Not as reliable as it was meant to be, but still worthwhile to some.
Yashica FX-3 2000 Super - Decent, but could use Contax lenses. A bonus.
Ricoh KR5 Super II - Could use all (Pentax) K-mount lenses.
Nikon FM / FM2 / FM2n / FM3A - Excellent system cameras.
If you want a mechanical camera, it then comes down to:
A) The type of photography that appeals to you most
B) The lens selection that you require
C) Availability of accessories.
D) Repairability vs Reliability
E) Flash capabilites
F) Weather-proofedness
G) Weight and size
In fact, the FM3A would win in nearly all the criteria, though I would prefer the FM2n or Olympus OM3Ti. I would not need or want aperture priority.
Eiger, your question isn't very clear. So maybe if you explain what you really did mean?
If you were comparing a Ricoh to a Nikon FM3A, then the only one I can think of that's comparable, is the Ricoh KR-5 Super II. The Nikon FM series were/are famous for being operable without batteries. Batteries are of course needed for metering, but the FM, FM2/FM2n, and FM3A would still take images even if the batteries had been removed, or had expired. A back up mechanical relective/incident meter would solve any such problems though.
The Nikon series of lenses is unsurpassed, and really only challenged by Canon in the amount of variety, and excellence of quality. There is no other system set-up that matched Nikon in the pre-digital age.
Since you've mentioned a mechanical camera (with aperture priority), then let me mention the competitors.
Olympus OM3 - Manual only, but extremely well made, and highly sought after.
OM1 / OM1n - David Bailey used this. Did him no harm. Manual only.
Leica R6 / R6.2 - Overpriced for what they are, but they have a die-hard following.
Pentax MX - Small and well regarded.
Pentax K1000 - Still used by some students to hone their skills and knowledge.
Contax S2 - Not as reliable as it was meant to be, but still worthwhile to some.
Yashica FX-3 2000 Super - Decent, but could use Contax lenses. A bonus.
Ricoh KR5 Super II - Could use all (Pentax) K-mount lenses.
Nikon FM / FM2 / FM2n / FM3A - Excellent system cameras.
If you want a mechanical camera, it then comes down to:
A) The type of photography that appeals to you most
B) The lens selection that you require
C) Availability of accessories.
D) Repairability vs Reliability
E) Flash capabilites
F) Weather-proofedness
G) Weight and size
In fact, the FM3A would win in nearly all the criteria, though I would prefer the FM2n or Olympus OM3Ti. I would not need or want aperture priority.