stephendunphy

If this is the wrong location for this post I apologize in advance. No doubt a Mod can relocate as necessary... Long story short, I'm trying to identify the last purely mechanical Canon slr. I've done a fair amount of research, but most of what I've found seems to be inconclusive and/or contradictory. Many references seem to 'classify' certain models as being mechanical, but yet when I look at specifications, I find reference to a battery. I'm guessing that in such cases the battery is only needed for the meter? And if that's the case, doesn't that mean that these models could still be used without the battery? I'm looking at the FTb, F1, FTbn, and EF. All of these make reference to a battery, but I'm hoping they can be used without one. Ideally I'm looking at the TFb. The FTbn seems good as well, but I'm having a hard time finding how to differentiate that model from the FTb. When isearch on, say, Ebay, every time I search for FTbn just the FTb comes up. Ultimately, I have no issues setting exposure by eye. That's still what I do even with my digital cameras. I just can't seem to figure out which models I can use without a battery. So the question is: if I got say, and FTb, could I use it without a battery? Any help on clarifying this situation would be greatly appreciated.

Just a quick thought on the topic, after perusing the entire thread, as I've long struggled with this very debate. Though I would say that, as with most here, I would place myself in the opposite camp to that of the OP, it seems that most are being a tad too harsh. To my mind, if there's anything to be gleaned from the discussion, it's that this isn't a mutually exclusive, binary situation here. Ultimately, the decision falls to to the individual alone as to whether or not something qualifies as photography or not; there is no objective criterion. And so, if the OP elects to opt for a stringent, narrow definition, then that's just as legitimate as any other. I certainly don't fall into such a purist representationalist camp, but neither do I so much as bother to play with PS anymore. Regardless, my perspective has no bearing on that of the OP. Ultimately, the question the OP poses isn't problematic because we cannot agree on a definition but rather because the question itself is not legitimate.

So I just noticed that the site time is 4 hours ahead of me, based on me noticing the site timestamp on a post I just made. Is there a way to set such timestamps so as to display correctly per user?

Aha. That explains things. I'd say that this very important point of clarification should be added to the initial sign up email that is sent out. Interpreting from the one I was sent, as far as I knew, I couldn't post on the forums until I had received my approval... This thread should be made a sticky, IMO.

I was wondering exactly the same thing...