Need Help Choosing My First FD Camera

<p>I bought a used T90+FD 50mm 1.4 for $30 from a guy who posted an ad online. The camera and lens (including the hood) are all in mint condition. I believe the T90 is the best fit for the criteria. I like the New F1 a lot more but it has no AE-lock. Since I only use manual exposure mode, there is no need for AE lock; and manual mode of the New F1 is better than all other FD cameras.</p>

<p>However I believe the move to FD system was based on a false reason:"all my lenses are manual focus and I'm quite new to focussing on a digital camera "</p>

<p>It is really almost impossible to focus manually with the digital K-x (ironically, focusing, manually of course, is very easy with the Pentax KX) because of its bad mirror viewfinder. All you have to do is to "move back" a little and take a used Pentax *istD (the original). You will be able to focus manually with the *istD and say an SMC 50mm F1.4. The way to use the *istD is very much the same as the film camera *ist, especially when you just lock your camera to shoot RAW only. I often shoot the whole session with my *istD without turning on its LCD at all and many of my colleagues thought it was a film camera</p>

<p>Hi Paul and Everyone<br>

I love my FD camera's (T90 A1 and F1n) and I love my 55mm 1.2 asph and 50mm 1.4 chrome nose lens and also my 35mm concave front f2. I also love shooting film and I get a lot of pleasure from shooting film for fun and for work when I get the chance. I did a gardening book and a travel book a couple of years ago and I used film for quite a few of the pictures (both Canon FD and Leica).<br>

I'm now going to be very very honest and risk being blacklisted from this great FD forum but here goes :-<br>

I've shot weddings over the years (on film too going back 8 or 9 years) but if you're serious about shooting wedding professionally I have to be honest and say get yourself a second hand 5D and 24-105mm L series lens if you're on a budget. People expect lots of pictures to choose from from a wedding these days (that's why I don't do them now!) and they also expect a certain amount of retouching on the bride in particular - and that means scanning the negs which is a pain. Much as I hate to say it here but digital is so much more flexible for wedding photography too because the ability to change ISO at the flick of a switch is just so useful especially on days when the weather and light is changeable.<br>

Auto focus is also a big help for the grab shots and reportage style pictures that people like and of course there's the issue of reliability too - any FD camera is going to be at least 10 years old and I wouldn't trust any older camera to cope with a paid wedding job because if it goes wrong or indeed the lab fog your film you will get sued.<br>

I would heartily recommend FD kit for portraiture and landscape work and even architecture where you can go back and re-shoot if anything goes wrong but for weddings which are pure one off occasions I just wouldn't risk it.<br>

Sorry if this causes any annoyance but I am only being honest.<br>

Best of luck<br>

David</p>

 

<p>Right chaps, I've had a lot of thinking to do recently and I've done so much research that my head really started to hurt. If anything the conclusion I've reached so far is that wedding photography is really darned annoying and requires rather pricey kit to get the best out of it. A few points that were most recently made and the last post by David has really hit home hard about the lab fog, I really hadn't considered this and it's put me off film completely (for weddings at least), though I have been enjoying shooting my ME Super so much that I think I will continue for fun.</p>

<p>I'm still very undecided what to do about my wedding photography as this is a big stumbling block for me, not just what David said, but I've also had many other things to consider recently, plus I've just moved jobs which will eat up a lot more of my time. I think I may turn my head to simple wildlife photography for fun for a while, which still leaves me interested in the 85mm f1.2 FD lens, though I'm wondering if it would be possible to combine it with a 2x TC and a four thirds system for a lightweight 340mm f2? (is that the right f-stop)</p>

<p>I'm still toying with the idea of the FD camera and I'm happy now that I know that it would either be a T90 or a F-1 of some kind, but I'm going to put that idea to one side for now. Thanks to everyone for their help with this and I'm very sure I'll be back asking more questions on these forums soon! I will certainly continue to browse as some of the work on here is exceptional! ttfn</p>

<p>I wouldn't give up on digital for wedding work. Focus issues aside, high ISO performance on modern digital cameras is a lifesaver and most clients ultimately expect a digital deliverable. I love my FD gear, but would never use it in place of a modern DSLR when I have to quickly turn around a quality product and want to minimize costs. I also endorse the T90 for an FD body. A great piece of kit.</p>

<p>It seems I've come full-circle in my photographic life. I began many years ago with a simple Nikon FE, and graduated through the various F models before moving on to the various digital D models. I am now shooting with old Leica gear and enjoying it immensely. It's rather nice having a camera which allows me to do the thinking.<br>

Personally, I also think the AE-1 program is the best all-around FD camera for the price. They are easy to use, easy to find, and ridiculously cheap. For what they do, they are worth far more than their average price. I have an early AE-1 which I still enjoy quite a bit. I've also had the FTB, the EL, and the venerable F1, but the AE-1 makes images identical in quality to the F1 for a fraction of the price.</p>

<p>The T-90 stands alone in the "electronic" FD camera era. It's internals are a full generation beyond anything else in the T series, and it's form is still with us today in pretty much every DSLR on the market. Even it's unique shutter set the standard that is still in play today. Don't confuse a T-90 with any other T series FD camera, as they are only related by their series designation. No kidding.</p>

<p>That said, a few folks mentioned the New F1 as being a top performer. I agree 100%. Of all of the F1 models, the latest is the most refined, and the most waterproof. They are tough to kill, and easy to maintain. It all depends on what you need most. The F1 is heavy, not very ergonomic in form, and requires an even heavier motor drive for transport automation. It is also beautiful, and I love it. I would never be without a functioning F1 system on hand.</p>

<p>The T-90 is by far the most advanced FD camera ever built. Subtracting AF, it is still as feature rich and modern as any other film camera made. It's like the EOS 1V for FD glass, and only gives up speed, as it tops out at 5 fps. Then again, it also does that in standard trim, and with only four normal AA batteries for power. It is also beautiful, and it fits your hand like nothing before it. I love it too, and would never be without it. I have owned T-90 cameras since 1986, and they are rugged beyond reason. Also, with the dirt cheap, and very powerful 300TL flash unit, the T-90 offers full TTL flash operation, including fill flash, second curtain sync, and a few other features that are not available with the other choices. The command back 90 still keeps the correct date today, and for years to come (unlike the F1 back), and handles all sorts of data recording as well as intervalometer functionality, and so much more. Bulb exposures do not require battery power on the T-90, and with the command back, exposures can be made for as long as 24 hours long, and programmed to begin when you choose. Top shutter speed on the T-90 is in a class by itself, as is flash sync in the FD lineup. There are just too many superlatives earned by the T-90 to list in one post. Of course, the T-90 also has a wide selection of bright laser matte focusing screens available that snap in place in the modern fashion (through the lens mount opening), so that you can select whatever screen suits your pleasure, while the prism hump remains fully sealed against dust and rain....</p>

<p>OK, I love them both. Which would I choose? I can't choose between them, but I will say that the T-90 gets far more use than any of my other FD bodies. Once you really learn the operation of the T-90 to the point of it becoming second nature, it is very hard to avoid picking it up first, no matter what the job at hand.... These are my favorite FD "working bodies". All are great choices for exploring FD film imaging.<br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/4358421187_e41178cc05.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="358" /><br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4399888779_e5c9ebb02d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4444891698_161857f4a0.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4444077035_f6719b7bcc.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>JDM, I haven't revisited this thread for a while, so sorry for the delay in answering your query on why I responded to you. I guess I was just posting a friendly caution since you said you were considering purchasing a T-90. I know from your posts that you are an "old hand" when it comes to cameras, but the person or company that you buy a T-90 from may not have your experience. I purchased my first T-90 from KEH and it came in good condition except one of the controls wasn't working. It wasn't a big deal so I kept the camera without fussing about it. It was a button on the rear of the camera that measures the exposure no matter what mode you are in, spot, averaqe or center weighted. You can do the same by a half depression of the shutter release, although the T-90 is sensitive, and I often inadvertently actually take a photo when I just want to read the exposure. My main point is that the T-90 is a complex camera with a lot of controls and possible settings, and the seller may not have done a thorough check of all of the functions, even with good intentions.</p>