Check out adapters for the screw mount to bayonets. M42, right? Pentax has an adapter.
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/nikon_lens_adapter_with_lens.htm for Nikon.
Do a web search. There’s an adapter for almost anything. Many of the screw to bayonet allow infinity focus, too! And if it’s not M42, but a T or T2, check used places and eBay. I’ve even found old Tamron Adaptall and Adaptall 2 mounts.
Of course, B&H or Adorama can prolly get you anything you need.
Several years ago, I spoke (phone) to Calumet about P3 - they DID offer to ship (maybe the woman I spoke to was clueless) the kit, but, as their SF store had it in stock, I bought it there.
When I talked to BH about it, I was told that the owners had instituted a blanket “no hazmat” shipping policy. Period. Come to NYC or don’t.
And yes, these conversations were within a couple of days of each.
That was not entirely accurate information and I apologize for the inaccuracy or misunderstanding. The process is difficult and we must go through the entire process individually for each product. That includes the same stuff in different sizes. It’s daunting and time consuming and as a result is not a first-tier priority. That said we appreciate customers who do want this genre of items and have not abandoned it.
[EMAIL=“henryp@bhphoto.com”]Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video
You know… Maybe in addition to the 24mm lens for the FM3a, I should also get a 70-200mm zoom as usedtobe suggested. You know, just in case.
I don’t want to spend a thousand dollars on one, but what would be a good one. Nikkor? Which one?
The new 70-200mms are actually closer to $2300 than $1000. I’m all about glass, so I’d recommend this particular one, especially for film cameras, but it’s at the $1000 level. It’s one of Nikon’s best pieces of glass and, actually, at $900-$1000 is quite a good price for it. The Tamron and Sigma equivalents are still going to be in the $700-$800 range.
Now, if you’re just looking quick and dirty cheap lens that is good value for price, and you’re going to primarily use it in good lighting conditions, you can always consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6. That’s not going to break your bank and, if you outgrow it, it’s only a $120 investment.
That’s the same lens I recommended somewhere up above, also. It gets great reviews and gives great results.
Yep. I used it for 12 years before finally replacing it last week with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. 
Sharp as a tack, that lens. (edit: the sharp as a tack was in reference to the 80-200, but it also applies to the new lens.)
Thanks, Chefguy. Sorry I missed your post when I posted my last.
Or …
Look for used Nikon Series E lenses. Most got excellent optical reviews when they came out. If you can deal with a cheap feeling lens (as opposed to how Nikkors feel), than these lenses are a great choice.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/index.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/70210mm.htm
.
I got the pics back today. The ones from the Canon were boring, as I expected. The pier at Blaine just didn’t grab me, and it showed in the photos. As I said, I shot these in full-auto mode so as to test the function on the camera. They seem a little underexposed. But I also flipped through them in poor light.
The B&W from the Olympus, with the 24mm lens, looked pretty good. I verified after the fact that the battery adapter has circuitry that compensates for the modern cell, so the meter was correct. Too bad I couldn’t get that Yamaha in colour. C’est la vie. Since I didn’t know I had B&W film in the camera, I was composing for colour. Also, I was just trying to burn the rolls so I wasn’t being artistic an’ shite. Still, there were two photos I kinda like.
And the Nikon… Remember I said the film in it was mostly exposed? Turns out it had stuff from the feature film we were working on in 2005. So now I know how long the film had been in the cameras. The 2005 shots were of crew, piles of equipment, and such. There were some of me with my Eclair NPR, and another guy (whose name I don’t recall) posing with the Eclair. Nothing exciting, but pretty neat.
Even more
just for fun 
Also, don’t discount the quality of the printing. Negs are the only real way to tell whether a negative is “thin” (underexposed) or not. Photofinishers can be all over the place in terms of printing. And negs have a lot of leeway in terms of exposure (I would say about a stop underexposure and two stops overexposure) before they really deteriorate in the print.