What's your favourite FD body, and why?

<p>So is it safe to conclude, then, that the F-1N is the favourite body amongst the members of this forum, followed by the EF and F-1n? It seems that the F-series wins the accolade, even over the mighty T90.</p>

<p>In light of this thread, my view might ruffle a few feathers, but here goes… <br>

<br>

It never ceases to amaze me how popular the EF is in this forum. I sometimes think there is a kind of 'hair-shirt' mentality in vintage camera forums, where a camera has to have a certain heft and lack of convenience to be a classic; otherwise it's just too easy.<br>

<br>

I had an experience of owning and using an EF in the early 90's when I took one to Barcelona for a 3 month trip, rather than risk my exoensive T90. I hated the EF and couldn’t get rid of it quickly enough. IMO it was big, heavy, ugly, clunky and unfriendly to use.<br>

<br>

Admittedly I came from a T90 and they are very different tools but even so, the only positive of my EF experience was that when I sold it I doubled my money. <br>

<br>

So what are the benefits of this quirky breeze block of a camera?</p>

<p>I think, Barry, that it would be as difficult to go from a EOS 5D Mark II, say, to a T90, as it would to go from a T90 to an EF. Once you're used to the later technology, it's hard to "go back." I'm just thankful that I started serious photography with a manual focus film SLR (an AE-1) rather than with a "modern" digital body. It "compelled" me to learn (and to better appreciate) the art of exposure and composition.</p>

<p>Hi Barry, Unfortunately I don´t own a T90, so can´t compare it to my EF. I use my EF for closeup "tabletop studio" shots, so I appreciate it´s slow speeds to 30 secs, it´s silicon cell metering to EV -2, and it´s MLU. No other FD camera has those three features. In the viewfinder the image area is free of any metering displays, and the windows behind the aperture and speed scales show me what is going on just outside the picture area, a feature I find very useful when I´m composing a shot right to the edges of the frame. The mechanical quality and finish of the EF make the camera, for me, a joy to use, but I´m (only)comparing it to my A series cameras and my FTbn. I´ve never been lucky enough to own an F1 old or new, or a T90.<br>

The T90 sounds like something special..and I could really benefit from it´s metering capabilities (I don´t like the EF´s centre-weighting because I don´t know exactly what it´s doing). But surely the T90 is heavier and quite a bit more bulky than the EF? And from what I´ve read here, I´d be nervous about the T90´s reliability.<br>

I had to chuckle at your comment about "hairshirt" mentality in vintage camera forums. I would imagine that many digital camera users who have never used film would think that all of us still using film cameras must have a "hairshirt" mentality!!<br>

All the best, Andy</p>

 

<p>Mark, the going back argument may be true in part but being a 1Ds & 400D user I can compare some aspects of the Eos and T90 systems and apart from DOF preview I find the ergonomics of the T90 preferrable. In particular the Multi-spot metering on the T90 is better, with it's dedicated H/S shift buttons.</p>

<p>Andy, there's not much in it by weight (the EF is only 5% lighter) and though the T90 is larger it fits the hand more naturally IMO. When I had the EF I was also a recent convert from the Pentax MX/ME line at the time and I guess I hoped for an FD version of the MX, which is a camera that I'd like to own again, though the new F-1 has proved a good alternative.</p>

<p>Hallo again Barry. Yes, I too had a Pentax MX in the late 1970´s. My first quality SLR, a lovely camera, but at the time I wanted some automation for candid people shots, so I sold it for an A-1. The MX is small of course, and fully manual, with coloured LED´s in the viewfinder (no close equivalent to it in FD), so I can understand why you didn´t like the EF. But they are very different cameras....<br>

You are right, the T90 and EF are similar in weight..without including those four AA batteries that the T90 needs. They would tip the balance a bit! Yes, I can imagine the T90 with it´s built in grip would be easier to hold, especially with sweaty hands in the hot Barcelona sun!</p>

<p>Interesting the T90 lost to the new F1 and the EF overall we must be heavily weighted to manual shooting - given we spend time writing about a system that has been obsolete for over 20 years this is probably reasonable. For me the T90 is the perfect blend of old and new technology and is simple enough to be usable. Compared to newer bodies the best FD bodies are something you can build an emotional relationship with. This appears to be something that has been lost with modern cameras. while my EOS5D Mark II and my pair of EOS 1Vs are clearly much more capable bodies than any of my FD bodies I have never related to them in the same way. What is interesting with the latest digital bodies is how canon has traded classic functions for selling features. My 5D mark II (despite being priced higher than the 1V) has a simple 9 point Af system, lacks the multi spot metering introduced on the T90 and does not have a viewfinder blind for long exposures. It appears that Live view and HD video (It is quite impressive) are more important than these traditional features. I also doubt it's longevity as it is not that robust, is likely to be obsolete in 5 years and will probaly become unsupported from a software perspective.</p>

<p>Philip, as usual I'm in complete agreement with your observations and assesssments. However, I would like to add that, although we aren't as attached to our EOS gear as we are to our FD gear, the 1V and 5D Mark II are capable of producing some very fine imagery.</p>

<p>The problem I have with modern gear is not with the gear<em> per se,</em> but with the fact that much of the photographic art has become colonized by the market. In the digital age, the creation of art has been subsumed by consumption and its collorary, profit generation. For example, the built-in obsolescence to which you allude has become so pervasive as to be taken as given, and consequently passes unquestioned. Witness the "need" to "upgrade" that almost all of us feel.</p>

<p>Hallo Mark P...interesting points you´ve raised, thank-you. As a film-only FD user, I like to be able to sit back and watch the digital wave move along, without having to jump in and get bowled along with it. Digital is still developing and maturing, so I guess the need to upgrade is ever present. That´s one reason why I´m letting it pass me by at the moment, and waiting for things to settle down. Mind you, 30 years ago I felt the need to upgrade too, which is how I got to Canon FD in the first place!<br>

I think digital post-processing has enabled many more people to "create" from their images, without the need for a darkroom. On flickr.com for example, yes there´s a lot of waste and rubbish, but a lot of new and interesting creative ideas too. Some people seem to just dump their photos by the thousand onto flickr, others take a lot more care with their work. And the net allows people across the globe to view these photos and give feedback.<br>

I´m teaching myself Photoshop at the moment (a slow process!), and am really enjoying playing around with my shots, and getting more out of them. At the same time I´m learning heaps about exposure, colour balance, contrast etc because I can see the effects straight away on the screen.<br>

And I love the way that I can still shoot film and Canon FD, post process digitally, and display my work to the world on the net. All the best, Andy</p>

 

<p>Andy, I don't think things will ever settle down, at least not until we've exhausted the planet's resources by consuming all there is to consume. We are approaching what ecologists call the "biophysical limits to growth." Let's just hope that enough of us begin to question the dogma of limitless economic growth and consumption, and that it happens soon enough to get us off this perilous path that we've taken...</p>