Film camera without batteries

<p>Mark, the release date of the TLb is one of the glaring errors on the Canon Camera Museum site. The TLb appeared on the US market in the fall of 1973 after the termination of Canon's marketing agreement with Bell & Howell. The Museum states that the TLb was marketed "overseas" in September 1974 and in Japan in April 1976. In the US, the TLb disappeared after the TX was introduced in 1975.</p>

<p>Rick, I categorize Canon's SLRs based on their lens mounts (Canonflex, FL and FD) . How about subdividing the FD mount cameras as follows:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>FD-M: First generation of mechanical cameras which generally do not require a battery to operate. Includes the F-1, F-1n, EF, FTb, FTbN, TLb and TX.</li>

<li>FD-A: Second generation of electronic cameras (the "A Series") which generally require a battery. Includes the New F-1, A-1, AE-1, AE-1 Program, AL-1, AV-1 and AT-1.</li>

<li>FD-T: Third and last generation of FD cameras (the "T Series") which generally incorporate more advanced electronics and automation. This category includes the T-90, T-80, T-70 and the adopted child known as the T-60.</li>

</ul>

<p>There's a symmetry to this in that each group has its exception. The EF needs a battery to operate its slow shutter speeds, the New F-1 will operate without a battery and, as an adoptee, the T-60 didn't have the genes needed to inherit the advanced electronics and automated film handling of its siblings.</p>

<p>Oops, I forgot to include the T-50 in the FD-T group of cameras.</p>

<p>I like Gordon Yee's classification and taxonomy. All of the FD-M cameras are tanks.</p>

<p>I'm nominating the theme song from "Patton" as FD-M's official anthem...now for that ivory-gripped Motor Drive MF...or was it pearl?</p>

<p>Well, if you really like to "paint with light", and would like the opportunity to enjoy some of the modern functionality afforded by electronics, you can always look to a T-90. I sort of agree with Gordon in his Canon classification system, but my view differs in two important details. First, I consider the F1N to be the logical, and ultimate evolution of the F1 line, and not a member of a different branch simply because it embraces a greater use of electronic functionality. It is still a true, mechanical F1 at it's heart, but with 10 years worth of tweaks, fixes, and with all the latest electronic advances that could be incorporated without losing it's mechanical soul in the event of a dead battery situation. I repaired all versions of the F1 back in the day, and in my estimation, the F1N is the zenith of the F1 lineup, and not the first of the next generation of Canon bodies. Still, there are fans of all generations of the F1, and to each their own.</p>

<p>The other exception is the T-90. Although it has a "T" designation, it is a mostly unique camera that has less in common with the other T series cameras than that which it shares with them. It's body is unique. It's control layout is unique. It's shutter is all it's own, and is likely the most ground breaking, and expensive shutter Canon ever built. The T-90 is a beast all to itself, and I'm certain that Canon already decided that it's development breakthroughs were to be expanded in, and eclipsed by the EOS system by the time it was market ready, but even without the possibility of financial success, Canon released it for that one year on the retail stage before EOS as a hedge against EOS failure, and simply because it represented a stunning display of Canon engineering and production skill to the photographic world that was just too comprehensive to become a footnote in the design journal of the EOS concept.</p>

<p>Thank God for that, as it gave the entire manual focus FD lens mount world a camera that would prove to be not only equal in functionality (within reason) to any future 35 mm film camera produced until the end of film production (which means it still rocks), but it also leaves the world with tangible evidence of the single camera concept that is still the ergonomic, control, and material build foundation model for most every (D)SLR camera built since it's 1986 debut.</p>

<p>If Gordon considers the F1N to be of a different generation than the earlier F1 versions, the T-90 certainly qualifies as being separate in most all respects from the other cameras in the "T" series, or any other FD camera at all, for that matter :).</p>

<p>By the way, the T-90 uses only four cheap AA batteries. It has a built in 5 FPS motor, a 1/125 X sync, a 30 second to 1/4000 sec multi-vertical curtain magnetic control shutter (bullet proof), TTL flash metering, full manual mode, all current AE modes, average, center weighted, and spot metering at a button press, multi-spot averaging, shadow and highlight priority metering and with the command back, it does data recording, and all modern intervalometer-frame count-bracketing functions. Plus, it has a Bulb setting. Did I mention the very bright viewfinder with full shot info display, and interchangeable laser matte screens?</p>

<p>Also note that it doesn't use any real battery power in "B" mode at all, and with the command back, you can program it to hold the shutter open in "B" for any interval up to 24 hours. No battery drain..... It likely does anything else you might care for a film camera to do as well, but the manual is a better place to read about all of that. Don't get lost in clockwork envy. I like mechanical cameras too, but batteries have their plus points. I can run 50 rolls of 36 exposure film through my T-90 on one set of four AA batteries, no matter what features I use. It's polycarbonate body also bounces very well, rather than denting or cracking, and there is no "paint" to rub through over time. It really is a "tank".</p>

<p>My T-90 has been doing the job without failure, or eating batteries for lunch since 1986. I have other FD bodies, and this is a pic of my current active FD bodies. I'll even take the T-90 as my choice for astro-photography over the others......</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4444077035_f6719b7bcc.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

 

<p>As 25 year old cameras go, the T-90 is still pretty easy on the eyes, even for a battery camera.</p>

<p>Of course, if you need a workout or a weapon that doesn't NEED a battery to function, the 30 year old option still looks pretty good too....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/4358421187_e41178cc05.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="358" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4399888779_e5c9ebb02d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4588250775_2922131357.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

 

<p>For many years, I was a lurker on the 'net. Even now, I only participate in a handful of forums. With this forum, I found a group of people who shared my enthusiasm for what others dismiss as an obsolete system.</p>

<p>As one of the old farts, I feel I can help guide those who are just discovering the merits of the Canon FD System. Much of the misinformation and misunderstanding I've seen is due to a lack of historical perspective. One of my pet peeves is the continuing reference to three F-1 models which I believe confuses many newbies. I would tell a newbie that there are two distinctly different models of the F-1, and that there are several variations of the first model due to minor changes made during its production run.</p>

<p>My suggested categories for Canon's FD cameras is simply an attempt to put a structure and a general perspective to the development of the system. Of course there are individual models with unique characteristics. That's the reason why they exist. To put a model in its own group due to its unique set of features would defeat the purpose of a general classification system. If we put the T-90 in its own sub-group, I could argue that the same would need to be done for the T-80, T-60, AL-1, etc.</p>

<p>Well to throw a comment in here in the back of the room. The Flash Sync on the T-90 is 1/250th not 1/125th</p>

<p>As to the various categories This thread is the first time in 10 years I have even seen anyone bring that up so I wouldn't argue over it to much.<br>

Gordon and well as others are an absolute treasure trove of info on the FD cameras and even as one of the Moderators of the group I learn stuff all the time from the other experianced guys here. AS well as them putting me in my place when I get something mixed up AND I DO!!!</p>

<p>Great system, great forum, great members!</p>

<p>Someone listed the F1n as one of the 'clockwork' cameras that works without a battery. IIRC, it's actually a hybrid. It will work at 1/60 and faster without a battery, but the slower speeds are processor-controlled and do require a battery. To work the camera at 1/60 or higher when your 6V battery packs up and dies, you do have to physically remove it from the battery compartment for some reason.</p>

<p>Also, strangely enough, I believe it can be powered from the motor drive, but you need an external cord to do so (?). Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that one, I've never actually tried it.</p>

<blockquote>

<h1>Film camera without batteries</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>How about digital camera without batteries?</p>

<p>Hah. Nice.</p>

<p>That would be pretty cool though. Maybe it could be powered by walking motion, or solar power. I doubt a digital camera could be made that consumes so little power, though. Maybe something almost purely clockwork, but with a digital sensor and storage.</p>

<p>JodyS-<br />Unlike Nikon (F2, F3, F4, F5, F6), Canon chose to keep the F-1 name for the third generation, hybrid successor model. Members on this forum have settled on a naming convention where F-1n represents the second generation of the fully mechanical, "clockwork" model (F-1, F-1n) while F-1N (note capitalized N) is the hybrid model you are describing. Canon just named this model the "New F-1". The differences between the F-1 and F-1n were relatively minor. The F-1N was a complete redesign.<br />You are correct, the F-1N model had an optional battery pack connector that plugged into the high power NiCad battery pack for the FN motor drive. It is intended for use in cold environments were the regular battery's output would be insufficient.</p>

<p>Yes indeed, the T-90 does sync strobes at 1/250 second! It is a brain drizzle thing. I post about the T-90, and I type 1/125 sec for flash sync... I do it often, and have no excuse. Perhaps I still can't get comfortable with the idea that a 24+ year old FD camera can accommodate flash sync at that speed, as it is still a premium feature on modern DSLR cameras with lighter and smaller shutters. Anyway, thanks for the correction, Mark. I'm glad I erred on the slow side though, as it makes the T-90 shine a bit brighter than the way I described it. I'm pretty certain that I repeated the accidental lie several times since, and even yesterday though. That's pretty bad, considering that the T-90 by far my favorite "go-to" FD body, and is used very often....</p>

<p>Gordon, the Canon family tree you present here is fine work. I only have a few points of differing opinion, and they are not meant to be taken in a negative personal manner at all. They are simply my thoughts about the topic offered in response to your own posted opinion. As another "old fart", I think that is reasonable, and in no way calls your expertise to task. It is simply the expression of slightly divergent points of view in an open forum. It is not a matter of relative passion either, as passion is a given among fans of FD imaging today. I am certainly passionate beyond reason about FD cameras, and I know from your posts that you are as well.</p>

<p>That said, I stand by my view that the New F1 is an integral part of the F1 family as a group. It is a logical progression of the theme. It is recognizable as an F1 to even a casual observer. In form, mechanical design, material choice, system architecture, control layout, and feature set, it is clearly an evolutionary extension of the previous F1 offerings. Even internally, it's heritage is abundantly clear. It is a very significant advance in the F1 lineage, but it is pure F1 in it's soul. At least it is to me... I repaired the oldest F1 bodies back in the 1970's as an apprentice bench tech, and to this day, I can clearly trace the F1 heritage through to the latest model with a pile of parts from each laid out on a table. They are all family as I see it. The New F1 is just the most recent, and offers the most refinement. That it adopted some of the best technology developed over the life of the F1 series prompts many to label it as a "hybrid", but it is still an F1 through and through. Again, that is how I see it.</p>

<p>By comparison, the T-90 was created as a result of a "clean slate" corporate mandate to build the ultimate FD camera in all respects, and with little concern for any previous design elements beyond the FD lens mount. It shares almost nothing with the other T series cameras at all. Unlike the New F1 compared to the older F1 cameras, the only heritage shared between the T-90, and the other T series cameras is the "T" in the series name. It was not an evolutionary build in any sense. It was a bold, breakthrough design effort that tossed all desire to maintain family identity with any previous FD mount camera out of the corporate window right from the start.</p>

<p>Those elements are the only areas that I disagree with your well thought out Canon family tree. Obviously, you think the New F1 is a completely different animal than it's predecessors, yet you consider the T-90 to fit reasonably well in the evolution of the T series family of FD cameras. I suppose that we will just agree to disagree on those points. Thoughtful and passionate people are allowed to do that kind of thing, as different perspectives provide all of us with a broader base of information to draw from. That's what a forum is all about, in my my view...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Given the T-90's "clean sheet" design approach it's strange that Canon didn't give it an F-_ designation of some sort instead of the T. When speaking of the original F-1 they mention the same clean sheet ideal, and that it cost them something like ten times (!) the R&D cost of a conventional camera.<br>

New F-1s: are they as rugged and durable as the original F-1s? Before adding one to my current FD collection I asked a couple of respected technicians what their opinions were- both thought the original was more rugged / reliable and easier to repair.</p>

<p>Jim, after reading your comments, I've come to the conclusion that this isn't simply a difference of opinion. Your perception that I "obviously" think think that the New F-1 is a completely different animal and not an evolution extension of the original F-1 is the polar opposite of what I believe. This leads me to believe that you're reading way more into my comments than is really there. You're (mis)reading specific details in what are gross generalities.</p>

<p>My general categorization of Canon FD bodies is based on their development and chronology which, for me, puts a perspective to the evolution of the FD family. The FD-A category is simply my term for the generation of FD cameras that were the first to incorporate electronics beyond that of an exposure meter. The New F-1 is just that, a second generation evolution of the original F-1 that incorporated electronics first developed for, and perfected on, the A series cameras. As such, I put it in the FD-A category. However, in no way am I saying that it's a glorified A series camera nor am I implying that the New F-1 isn't an F-1. All I was trying to do was to help newcomers to the FD world get general a sense of where the different models appeared on the family tree by breaking their chronology and technological developments into three time periods or generations. Newbies are often confused when they read that there were three F-1 models. Putting the New F-1 in the FD-A category emphasizes that it's significantly different from the first two.</p>