I finally have a simple way to answer the question

<p>I am constantly asked why I don't move to Digital or at least AF and get rid of my old Canon FD crap.<br>

the simplest answer I can come up with:<br><p>

I own a 50mm f2.L nFD in near perfect condition with matching hood. I paid about $300.00 for it.<br>

The EF 50mm f1.2L USM is $1599.00 with USA warrenty.<br><p>

I also own 37 other Canon FD lenses all but 5 are Canon and the 5 that aren't are in there own way the best I can find to do their job.<br><p>

Doesn't take a calculator to figure out the answer.<br><p>

Sure a Digital body would save me money on film. And I would pay for the body in but a couple years of shooting digital. But how long would it take to pay for the Lenses the Flashes the focusing screens the remote triggers the macro gear etc.<br><p>

If I sold everything I could buy a 5D body a 40D body and a 3-4 lenses having to go zoom to even come close to the range I have now (17-600mm in primes and 24-200 in zooms) No way would I have anything to approch the 1000mm I get with my 500mm f4.5L and a 2X-A not even with the crop body. Sure I would gain IS.</p>

<p> </p>

 

Not to mention the wife shoots wildlife along side me. So I need two long lenses. Now she uses the 400mm f4.5 nFD and a 2X-A on a AE-1P and I use the 500mm f4.5L S.S.C. and a 2X-A for birds. I can buy a new car for what that would cost in EF mount.

 

Not sure if I'm happy or sad. I guess I'll go shoot some film.

<p>It's hard to believe that someone suggest getting rid of "old Canon FD crap!" I use Canon EOS digital equipment but I still have my classic FD equipment including and much loved and used F1. FD equipment is still very capable. </p>

<p>Keep on using the FD stuff, it sounds like it serves your needs well.</p>

<p>My uncle asked me the same thing a few years ago. I got home, thought about it, and started to add up what it would take to straight up replace my kit with equivalent digital gear (possibly a little rigged, but at the time my thinking was 1ds mkII for the F-1, etc.) I stopped counting when I hit $30,000.<br>

I need to shoot more too.....<br>

Dan</p>

<p>Bravo Mark - I like it - I really like it! I say the same to others when the ask me that question.</p>

<p>Some folks, like me, didn't build up a large kit and some folks never do. If somebody sees you out with a simple F-1 and 50mm (even if it is a f/1.2L), they might think you only have a small FD kit, in which case it wouldn't take too much to replicate in EF/digital.<br>

<br /> I'd love to have an FD kit, but I'm expected to shoot digital when I'm getting paid, so I need to fill that kit out first. Guess the old adage about using and buying what works best for you applies here, except you guys already have a lot of the stuff bought.</p>

<p>It is pretty funny when you think about it. Someone will pay top dollar for either new equipment or really old equipment, but not great recent generation equipment.</p>

<p>This is a good thread. Let me argue it with a bit of pseudoscience. There's two main factors that determine your motivation to move to digital: your processing costs (which I'll call <em><strong>c</strong></em>), and the quality of the image you require (which I'll call <strong><em>q</em></strong>). If the ratio <em><strong>c/q</strong></em> is high, you should dump your FD stuff and go digital.<strong> </strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Consider three photographers. Amy is a busy high street pro photographer, and shoots 30 weddings a year and a lot of studio work. She needs high quality images, which means full-frame digital and the best lenses, so <strong><em>q</em></strong> is high. On the other hand, she was spending $50K a year on film processing and proofing, so <strong><em>c</em></strong> is astronomical, and she recouped the cost of her 1Ds III in a couple of months. Amy's <strong><em>c/q</em></strong> ratio is high, and she switched to digital years ago.</p>

<p>Bob is an occasional photographer. He shoots goofs wearing lampshades at the office party, and his kid's soccer games. He spends $100 a year on developing and prints at Walmart, so <strong><em>c</em></strong> is low. On the other hand, he wouldn't know quality if it bit him on the ass, so <strong><em>q</em></strong> is very low, and he is just fine with a $100 digicam, which paid off in a year. Bob's <strong><em>c/q</em></strong> ratio is high, because <strong><em>q</em></strong> is so low, and he switched to digital years ago.</p>

<p>Charlie, on the other hand, is a serious creative amateur, maybe dabbles in fine art. He is fussy about quality, which means he will not go to digital until he can get an EOS camera with a full-frame sensor and a bag of fast primes. On the other hand, he only shoots 50 rolls a year. He uses Tri-X which he develops himself, and a bit of XP2, so his processing costs are low. Charlie's <strong><em>c/q</em></strong> ratio is very low, because <em><strong>c </strong></em>is low and <em><strong>q</strong></em> is high. He would be insane to dump his FD stuff for EOS digital, even in 2009<em><strong>.</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Yeah, I know it's not that simple, but this is the main reason why a lot of creative amateurs are still shooting film, and why there are still so many film shooters on photo.net. Canon's marketing department probably hates us, because we don't buy new cameras, but there's a lot of us, and we'll be here for a long time. Incidentally, that's why I remain optimistic about the availability of film in my lifetime. <br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The c/q argument doesn't completely work. I'm a charlie, I shoot for myself, exhibit ocassionally and sell a few prints, but...</p>

<p>I switched to digital because I shot architecture and had got to the point where I wanted TS-E type lenses. The FD35 T/S was'nt enough on it's own so I decided to go for the TS-E 24 and 45 on canon full frame. At the time a used 1Ds was £2,500 and an Eos 3 was £400 used or £700 new - six months later it might have been a 5d but the option of T90 style multi-spot metering on the 1Ds would probably still have won out.</p>

<p>I worked out that the saving in film on the body was going to go positive in around 5 years, as the lenses would be bought anyway The 1Ds was a no brainer. I have just reached that point and am still using the 1Ds, supplemented by a 400d I won in a competition with an image from the 1Ds. I have however added a couple of other L-series lenses. the surprising thing is that with all that quality glass and the potential of the 1Ds a lot of my best work has been made using a Lensbaby and pushing the ISO to max, something I'd probably never have tried with film.</p>

<p>More recently I have found that I enjoy using and collecting the FD series cameras - in spite of thier quirks. It is amazing that with an ebay account and a bit of patience £26 got me an 85-300 S.S.C and £40 got me a T70 and a bagful of lenses - 50/1.4, 35-105/3.5, 70-210/4 - and a speedlite 277, all of which are Canon.<br>

The film and processing bills are creeping up again though!</p>

<p>Makes sense Mark.</p>

<p>Have you thought about trying a micro four-thirds body, like the Panasonic DMC G-1 (+ FD adapter), for Bird use? It's not exactly cheap, but, it would be an add-on to the FD system that wouldn't require all the other purchases you mentioned.</p>

<p>I am seriously considering this body for use with the FD 400/4.5 lens. It would give me an effective 800/4.5 lens in a fairly light-weight, relatively inexpensive package (even cheaper for those of you who already own the lens).</p>

<p>With the G-1 Manual Focus Assist function, the image can be magnified 5x or 10x in the Electronic Viewfinder (or on the LCD screen), so, focus should be fairly easy from a good tripod.</p>

<p>DMC G-1 also has an articulating LCD screen (macro applications?).</p>

<p>I have read several good reports (here on pnet) from folks who have used this camera with other (shorter) FD lenses.</p>

<p>Also, I have read (but I don't claim to understand) that the small MFT sensor would not have the same ability to blur backgrounds as you would expect with the same lens on a film camera.</p>

<p>I know where I can rent the camera (but not the MFT/FD adapter)...however, I don't own the lens so, I can't easily try this out.</p>

<p>Have any of you tried an MFT camera with a long FD lens like the 400/4.5?</p>

<p>Here is a link to the DP Review page for this camera:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcg1.asp</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>I'm in complete agreement with Mark's ROI and Dave's user stratification justifications models. I'll forward the concept that one does not need to abandon the FD sysytem to use and become profiecent with or use digital photography. Shoot both. The FD system is so inexpensive now, there is not much financial reason not to have a kit. It doesn't have to be either/ or.<br>

A film scanner is as common now as a slide projector use to be. Theses days, with either camera, the end result is digital, so both cameras gets you to the same end point.<br>

The real power in digital imaging is not in capture devices, it's in software like Photoshop and in digital printing. This is what keeps all film based image delivery systems, including Canon FD, potent and relevant in 2009. As part of a hybrid workflow, Canon FD offers the most ROI for imaging dollar spent making it uniquely attractive to hobbyists, students and artists.</p>

 

<p>OK I have explored the Micro 4/3 Idea and while it would be benificial on the long end of my optic's I would be stuck using the stock Micro 4/3 zoom lens for any wide or std lenght photo's and would have no wide option wider then 28mm effective. Since a lot of my photography involves waterfalls I need the angle of view of my 20mm and 17mm lenses.<br>

I do shoot digital in fact the majority of what I shoot is digital. But it's with a Canon S3-IS which takes care of all the snap shot and record keeping type photo's We have THOUSANDS of 4X6 photo's of our two young grand daughters as well as the documentation of my projects in a bunch of other hobbies.<br>

But for anything serious I shoot Canon FD.</p>

 

I also own a Canon FS4000US film scanner and use Vuescan I print color on a Canon ip6700D printer. I'm also actively seeking a 13" wide Canon Printer. Not that I need one.

<p>No ROI or c/q analyses for me: Though I have a Canon DSLR and some other digital goodies, including the Panasonic Lumix G1, I like using my FD equipment because I think more about what I'm doing and become completely absorbed in it. I also love the results.</p>

<p>I have used and continue to use FD system since 1980. I added EOS film body and lens starting around 1992, and EOS digital 2006. Unless you have tons of cash laying around, I would look at used equipment in digital, there are plenty of guys (yes mostly guys) that have to have the latest and greatest. I got a like new 1d-2 (11,000 shutter actuations) earlier this year for around $1000. While it is considered "old" technology 2004 lol, the guy that sold it to me paid around $4k for it new. It would have cost me way more than $1000 if I had shot the 55 or so soccer and baseball games I did over the last 9 months. I still like using film and my darkroom and formats other than 35mm. It's pretty funny when one of my kids comes up to look at the back of my F1 or T-90 when I'm shooting, though...digital confusion.</p>

<p>The c/q works for me: I'm a Charlie and won't ever be anything else in the future. FD completely satisfies my needs and whatever artistic talent I might have, with two minor exceptions. Digital is surely nice when you need an image now, but for me, that rarely goes beyond posting a photo of a lens on this forum. And AF would be nice in certain situations, because I'm just not fast enough any more. I just solved that by buying an EOS 3 for about 9% of the cost of a 5D--and I don't even own a lens to fit it. I'll be paying three times as much for a slow consumer-grade zoom for it than I would for many expensive FD lenses. Browsing prices for an EF 24-105L has just driven home the sheer cost of new equipment, and I can by two exotic FD supertelephotos for what one 5D Mark II body costs, the only digital body I'd be happy with. I'd rather have an FD 150-600L for that kind of money.</p>

<p>Yet cost is not the factor for me. Well, the huge cost is <em>the</em> single factor that keeps me from owning a 5D Mark II and several L zooms, but cost is not a factor in keeping my FD gear.</p>

<p>I enjoy the breadth that I can experience with low-cost FD equipment, and I bought most of mine when the cost wasn't so low. I have a copy of every FDn lens ever made except the 24-35L, the 150-600L, the 600/4.5, and the 200/1.8L. I'll never own a couple of those because the cost/satisfaction ratio is out of sight. And I've never found a 600 where I thought the price was right. I have a bunch of bodies and most of the accessories. Amortized over the many years it's taken to gather it all as bargains, the cost has been quite manageable. I paid less than the then-current market value for every piece of it. I can go to the closet and pick out gear to do <em>anything possible</em> with 35mm film, from photomicrography to 20X macro to 180 degree panoramas to 1600mm birding, with the total depth-of-field flexibility of fast lenses or the advantages of small, light lenses. I can meter exposures from 30 seconds to 1/4000. That's what I like; variety is the spice of life.</p>

<p>My return on investment is the fun and satisfaction. That comes in two ways. One is in photographic results, which FD always delivers (as do modern films). The other is in enjoyment of the gear itself. That's as important to me as "get out there and shoot." In photography and all other endeavors, I enjoy using quality tools. If my view of return-on-investment was entirely monetary, this would be a total waste and I should sell it all. My technique and artistry don't justify even a modest investment in gear.</p>

<p>There's a lot to be said about the "thinking factor" when shooting FD and film. Not only do we all tend to think more and subsequently shoot fewer frames, but I believe that the long-term learning experience is better. Many times now I will put the camera down where I would have made a shot in years past. I know. I know when not to pull the trigger, and I know what to do (most of the time, anyway--I forget to think!) to get the results I want when I do pull. I don't need a digital error factor of 10X. I am reminded of point-and-shoot family and friends who, over the years, have asked, "Aren't you going to take another one just to make sure?" And just a week or two ago I was looking at a 5D for sale that had "only 4,526 clicks." Only??? In a couple of years, as a hobbyist? Wow, my entire library isn't that big.</p>

<p>Bottom line, I like film and FD and I don't care what anyone else thinks I should use! I stopped being influenced by popular thinking a long time ago. I know who I am now. If it was worth it, I'd shoot a 5D, but I'd still use FD.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I love the pseudoscience, despite the fact that there's so much of it around these days. Bravo, Sims!</p>

 

<p>Alan that is very nice photo trickery I like it.</p>

<p>Also don't bother with the 600mm f4.5 I had one and I got better photo's blowing up my 500mm f4.5L then I did with it. And when i put a doubler on it the thing went to shit.</p>

<p>Sorry I had to say it LOL.</p>

<p>Personally, while i have a Canon digicam (Powershot SD990) i couldn't stand it on my past vacation in Aruba. I couldn't get any sunset images to come out right when in the past with an F-1 i have obtained perfect results. I couldn't take any of my F-1s this year because they were at home and i went there straight from the mountains of afghan. Next year I will take an F-1 and leave the digicam at home.</p>

<p>I must admit that I've recently been wrestling with the same questions, tempted by the Panasonic G-1 so I can keep using my FD gear. It's the first time in a long time that I've been tempted.</p>

<p>I've been using FD since 1977 and still have the A-1 that I got in 1979. I did get an early digital point-and-shoot around 1997. The shutter lag killed me, particularly when photographing kids, and I vowed at that time that I wouldn't go digital until I could afford a top-notch DSLR. Since then, though, my FD kit has grown nicely, to about 20 lens. As several of you have noted, even if I went digital, I could never, ever think about building a comparable kit.</p>

<p>I also agree with Alan about the "thinking factor." I definitely put more thought into my shots than the folks around me digitizing madly. What do they do with all of those images? Do they have several external hard drives filled with mediocre photos that they're never going to print and really shouldn't show to anyone? As Alan said, I feel like I know when I've got the shots to document whatever the occasion is, and I'm right the vast majority of the time.</p>

<p>I've started my two oldest kids shooting T-50s (total cost: less than $50, including two 50mm 1.8s). They love it. And they already stop and think about every shot, which is invaluable to learn at their ages. I'm looking forward to moving them into something with more manual control, again at the dirt-cheap FD system prices.</p>

<p>Heck, I just recently bought a beater F-1n off of eBay for $32. I wonder if any G-1s will still be going strong 30+ years from now--even for $32!</p>

<p>Call me a relic, call me what you will . . .</p>

<p>I'm one of those people who loves both my EOS gear and FD gear. I've recently slimmed down my FD gear (I've slimmed down my overall number of cameras altogether) but it's slowly creeping back up. Today I carried my 7D along with an AE-1P with a 50/1.4 SSC mounted on it. I've also got my sights on an F-1n that I feel that I must have; the F-1 is such a beautiful camera that I'll always shoot with one, no matter what. The results I get from it are incredible.</p>

<p>Well I guess I am to old to give up on film.My kits include a Canon L1 rangefinder with 50mm 1.2 /28 mm and 135 mm. AE1Program/ T90/and 6 fd lenses/Eos1and 5 EF lenses.But I did buy a canon G5 and 10 D to play with . Lots of stuff but all bought used at reasonable prices.</p>

<p>A much simpler answer would be "it's paid for". </p>

<p>Dave's ratio is a good start but might need an unpredictability function <strong><em>f(l)</em> </strong> where <strong><em>l</em> </strong> stands for lens (and other kit) lust. Maybe that even needs a power coefficient <strong><em>i</em> </strong> added to it, representing impulsive internet bidding! For fifteen years I just had an AT-1 and three very basic primes, but then the combination of affordability and availability of FD glass in online auctions got me to assemble within the last four years a much larger collection, including Jay's considered 400 f4.5</p>

<p>However, at the same time I fell for digital temptations as well, and for the past two years I've been happily hybridizing manual focus lenses with a Sony A100 and A700 body. Mostly FD lenses but also a few Nikon AI and quite a lot of Tamron Adaptall-2. Using the FD lenses on Alpha bodies requires some compromises (glassless adapter loses infinity focus, no automatic aperture control) but I'm really pleased with results on the A700 especially. For birds, the A700 + nFD 400 f4.5 is my main hiking combo and A700 + FD 300 f2.8 SSC my more occasional tripod closeup combo, mostly for catching very small birds at feeders or water drips.</p>

<p>The ability to adjust ISOs and to review results on the spot really makes a big difference to me for wildlife and macro work - at least at my skill level. On the other hand, for landscapes and buildings I much prefer film, as it gives me the full benefits of wide angle lenses and is much less dependent on the luck of the mo(ve)ment.</p>

<p>I have a much more modest collection of lenses, (7), one T-70, a few flashes, and only a few other pieces of Canon FD gear. This equipment suits me fine, and I like the results. The jump to Digital is a tough one for me. For the amount of film I shoot every year, it is difficult for me to justify the costs of converting to digital. I'm also stunned by the cost of new lenses, flashes etc. I don't think I would produce better results with a digital camera, just have a little less money in the bank. After all, I shoot Canon FD as a hobby, so I can't write off the expense of new gear.</p>

<p>I did buy my wife a new Nikon D-60 last August. The camera came with two zooms, and it does produce good photos. But when I look at getting any extra lenses, I just can't justify the price tag. For those shots I just use my Good ole Canon FD and move on. For my wife the Nikon D-60 digital camera is wonderful. She takes a lot of photos of the kids, and also many photos for their school. In this use, the digital camera is perfect.</p>

<p>I like to say that I'm a sniper and she is a machine gunner. We will go to one of my son's football games, and both take a few photos. I'll take about 10 photos for one game, and she will take over 100. At the end of the game we will both have a few nice photos. But she needed to take ten times as many photos to produce a few good shots. I bought her the digital camera to save on film, and I'm way ahead. (Years ago she took 72 photos of my son at a kindergarten class trip. Recently she took over 1,000 photos using the Nikon D-60 at a dance recital. Digital does have it's place, but it isn't the only answer.</p>

<p>For me the final photo held in my hands is all that really matters. I can produce consistantly good photos, (at my modest skill level) with my Canon FD. In fact, I've never been limited by the quality of my gear, but rather I'm usually limited by my skills as a photographer.</p>

<p>Jeff</p>