Why FD rather than an EOS film camera?

Another factor is the ability to repair older tech cameras. Cameras with parts made of pure unobtanium become worthless because they simply can't be fixed. The same problem occurs with vintage aircraft and not-so-vintage cars. Once the supply of custom built electronics dries up that's it.

At the end of the day, the camera body has a limited effect on image quality, - unless it's defective. But, given that you can't use modern lenses on an FD body, then it's also true than any improvements in optics/coatings would only be found on lenses for EOS cameras (as far as FD vs EOS goes).

 

EOS film bodies also have some aids built into them that help you get more consistent results, - Autofocus, improved Auto-exposure, Auto-Bracketing, etc.

 

For me personally, the image quality issue gets turned on its head a bit. I won't be be buying and Canon L or Sigma Art lenses anytime soon because this is just a hobby for me. FD lenses were attractive because you can often get high quality glass for a small investment. They won't auto-focus, have image stabilization, or be as light, but they are easier to work on if things need to be cleaned or repaired.

 

As I was running a test roll of film through an original Elan I'm getting reading ready to sell, I really appreciated what it has to offer, - more so than the Elan II. But I enjoy the manual focus cameras more for now. I can still enjoy auto-focus and other modern niceties on my DSLR.

I love my EOS 3 but it is unreliable because of its magnetic shutter release. For that reason, and the size of the lenses, I prefer the F-1N.

I own a large collection of FD cameras and lenses and a smaller collection of EOS cameras and lenses. My only EOS film camera is an Elan IIe, a very nice camera that doesn't get any respect. A couple years ago, I sold a mint, almost unused Elan II on eBay at auction, opening bid of $9;95. That's what it sold for! I was stunned. And that's what really woke me up to just how low prices are for amateur orientated EOS cameras. And most other recent vintage electronic film cameras, except for the pro-oriented ones, which are still selling for, well, at least not peanuts.

 

On the FD side, for probably 35 years or so, I've preferred the older manual FD cameras, like the FTb and original F-1. I like the way these two cameras' meters operate and I prefer match-needle metering, which both have. Unlike most other FD cameras, when used manually, the meter responds to changes in both the aperture and shutter speeds (most FD Canons' meters respond to changes in shutter speeds only). The old F-1 and FTb also both use the NLA 1.35v mercury batteries, but thankfully the 1.4v 675 hearing aid batteries are an easy replacement -- and they are cheap. I can buy a card of 40 of them at Costco for less than $10. So what if a 675 may last for only 6 months or less? I usually drop in a new one before I head out on a new shoot if it's been a while since I last used the camera. It's also only fair to mention, I feel, that the New F-1 is a spectacular camera, even if it's missing the mirror lockup function that both the FTb and old F-1 have.

 

I can recall that, back in the 80s, users of Canon gear were somewhat regarded as second class citizens, since in the SLR world, Nikon was the undisputed champion. Funny how time has a way of leveling things, though, eh? I've always known that Canon had produced some brilliant glass and that it was at least the equivalent to Nikon in terms of image quality. These days, though, I shoot both Canon and Nikon manual focus and I regard them as equivalent, optically. Each system has its standouts: Canon's 85mm f/1.2 Asph and L and 55/50mm f/1.2 Asph and L, Nikon's 180mm f/2.8 ED, etc.It's all good.

 

These days I have several different systems that I use: in addition to Canon and Nikon, I also have Pentax, Minolta, and most recently Contax. Plus I have a good selection of Tamron SP lenses, most of which are superb optical performers, so no matter what system I'm using, I have a nice selection of lenses to use with it.

 

But looking over my collection in its entirety, I must say that newer electronic cameras are only a tiny fraction of the total. This was more or less a conscious move on my part -- mostly because of a perceived lack of durability of the newer gear. Take my Elan IIe for an example, or my Nikon N80. Both are fine cameras in terms of features and performance, but each weighs next to nothing because it's made almost entirely from plastic. This may not be a cause for concern because I've seen in many instances proof that modern plastics can take a huge amount of abuse and even resist it in ways that metals can't. But were these cameras made in such a fashion? I dunno and I have no interest in subjecting them to torture tests to find out.

I own a large collection of FD cameras and lenses and a smaller collection of EOS cameras and lenses. My only EOS film camera is an Elan IIe, a very nice camera that doesn't get any respect ...

 

That's the exact camera that I was thinking about when I started this thread. The Elan IIe is a very capable film camera that no one wants. ;)

 

It's has a control layout that's very similar to Canon's DSLRs with a both a main dial and a quick control dial. For me that was attractive, - being able to move from digital to film and back using cameras with similar controls. It has enough smarts and ability that I can be confident that 90% of the pictures I take with it will be in focus and properly exposed. But I rarely used it.

 

What I've found that I enjoy in film cameras is almost the opposite and I've moved in a different direction. The Elan IIe and Canon's DSLRs are light but huge. I recently picked up an Olympus OM-1, which like your canon F models, uses match needle metering and so does my Yashica medium format camera. The Olympus has an entirely mechanical shutter and film advance which I find a joy to use, - and it's compact. Ironically, using Olympus OM lenses on a Canon DSLR works much better than trying to use an FD lens on a Canon DSLR.

EOS - too many silly options - mode this - Eos mode that. By the time you figure out what mode to use, the moment is gone

 

Just noticed this.

I don't know anyone (at least in my camera collective) who actually uses the "modes" as opposed to the M, Av, Tv, and P settings on EOS cameras, even when including the "Rebel" (XXXD) models. Maybe that's a shame, I don't know.*

 

*On the other hand, I was the only person on the PhotoTrek who put up my hand when the question was raised of who liked to do post-processing in Photoshop:)

I was an A1 fan in the day, having bought one when they first came out...but over the years I came to really dislike it, and when Canon abandoned the FD line of lenses I, too hastily wrote them off, switching to the Nikon line. Still there, but as really good FD lenses dropped in price, and I became more familiar with the T90, I jumped back in and picked up one for a song. These days it doesn't get much use, but oh some of those lenses...I've been using many on my m4/3 body. A friend ggave me a nice EOS body and lens about 4 years ago, telling me it wasn't working...all it needed was cleaning the battery terminals...but honestly, in use it felt "cheesy" compared to the T90 and FD lenses. To each his own.

Just noticed this.

I don't know anyone (at least in my camera collective) who actually uses the "modes" as opposed to the M, Av, Tv, and P settings on EOS cameras, even when including the "Rebel" (XXXD) models.

 

*On the other hand, I was the only person on the PhotoTrek who put up my hand when the question was raised of who liked to do post-processing in Photoshop:)

Then what was/is the point of all those "modes"

Then what was/is the point of all those "modes"

 

I suppose they are there in the hardware/software shared by all models and are tacked on for actual, real "newbies".

 

Sort of on the lines of Bluto's "have a beer, don't cost nothing"

I think the real newbies stick to the green square (fully automatic) on Canon cameras. That's what my wife does. In fact, it took me awhile to pay much attention to the modes but I've started to use them on the dSLR and P&S. The 60D gets used for shooting high-shool sports a lot so I frequently use the sports mode. I have used that mode on an Elan but from an economic standpoint it makes a whole lot more sense to shoot 2+ fps digitally than it does with film.

 

Since I started this thread, I've been selling some of my cameras and it's interesting to see what they go for. Right now I have an original élan (EOS 100) for sale on eBay with a ho-hum Vivitar 28-80mm lens. The only reason I'm including the lens is that it's not worth selling on its own. The camera is film tested and comes with a battery and manual. Next week I'll sell an Elan IIe with an equally ho-hum lens. I think the word has started to get out a bit because the IIe's at least seem to be fetching a little more money than they did a couple of months ago. Still less than you'd get for an AE-1 or an AE-1p.

 

The starting price for the élan was $12.00 and after a few days I started to wonder if I was even going to get that. It's now got one bid but it wouldn't surprise me if it sold for less than $30. If I had received no bids, I would have kept it rather than try to re-list it. Just not worth the hassle. I wonder if I were to keep the camera for another decade if a different generation of buyers might feel some nostalgic pangs for these Elans and they'd be worth more.

Edited November 3, 2017 by tomspielman

I think that much of the current market for many film cameras these days is already made up of people like me who are thrilled by the chance to own and use the cameras they were tempted by, but were out of reach financially. When we are gone, people who survive us may not have much in the way of nostalgia.

 

 

Many of my too-large collection of cameras and lenses cost less than a couple of fancy pizzas, if that.

 

I suppose there will be a persisting market for the Leicas and a few other old cameras, but even cameras as collectible as Nikon and Canon rangefinders are more affordable now than they were even a few years ago. Even M-series Leica bodies are pretty easy to come by; but the lenses are still very expensive compared to, say, M42 mount lenses.

 

Hey, although it's not a first time, I suddenly realized I am taking my OWN post, off-topic:eek:

I think that much of the current market for many film cameras these days is already made up of people like me who are thrilled by the chance to own and use the cameras they were tempted by, but were out of reach financially. ...

 

It's certainly true for me. I'll see a classic camera on craigslist, eBay, or at a thrift store for $10 to $50 and I just can't help myself. It doesn't matter if they need a little fixing up. In fact, I like fixing them up. And though I've picked up a few film EOS cameras along the way, I find them much easier to part with, - even though a couple of them have been functionally very nice cameras. The Rebel was OK too. Just not as nice to use in manual mode as the Elans.

Take my Elan IIe for an example, or my Nikon N80. Both are fine cameras in terms of features and performance, but each weighs next to nothing because it's made almost entirely from plastic. This may not be a cause for concern because I've seen in many instances proof that modern plastics can take a huge amount of abuse and even resist it in ways that metals can't. But were these cameras made in such a fashion? I dunno and I have no interest in subjecting them to torture tests to find out.

 

The New FD lenses were made of a polymer resin, a type of "plastic". I think complaints about "plastic" cameras are largely overstated. After all, these polymers are used in the manufacture of many things, including this.

 

http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/New-787-livery.jpg

True enough. Metal doesn't necessarily mean quality. Crappy cameras and lenses from the 70's and earlier also had lots of metal. All else being equal, I'd prefer something lighter to something heavier. However, what also changed along with the transition from metal to plastic was the repairability. Older lenses and cameras were easier to take apart and repair/clean. Modern lenses (as an example) are much more likely to have the glass cemented in place.

 

And though modern dSLRs and lenses are lighter relative to the equivalents from past years, they aren't necessarily smaller. Bulk is as much of a problem, and maybe more-so than weight. The Elans are huge compared to equivalent SLRs, - though they do have built-in motorized film transport which would have been an accessory in older camera.

Edited November 5, 2017 by tomspielman

I suspect that there are more of the newer models out there.

 

But as far as I can tell, all can be found for very low prices.

 

Bid low and often, and you can get many old 35mm SLRs for $20 or so.

There are some popular models that might go for $50 or $100.

 

Medium format prices haven't dropped as fast, though.

 

AI lenses go for low prices, even though they work on newer Nikon DLSRs.

 

Both FD and EF lenses are very affordable, except for the top of the line models.

It was Christmas of 2008. My wife bought me a EOS XS (aka 1000D) with the 18-55 II zoom. I hadn't done much of anything photography related for several years. In fact about four years before, I sold off a lot of pieces that I felt I would never use again. Funny thing happened, though. Holding an SLR in my hands again started waking up long dormant urges. I had kept a small EOS outfit (Elan IIe, and a few lenses) for the wife, and a Nikon F2 outfit just to have something from the old days. I dragged the Nikon out of storage, dusted everything off, and for the first time in years, bought some film and loaded it up. About this same time, I discovered I could buy a cheap adapter that would allow me to mount Nikon lenses on my EOS DSLR, so of course I bough one. That was what started it all. Before I scarcely knew it, I had bought several Nikon mount lenses so I could use them on my EOS. And of course, I'd get to use them on my F2.

 

I was shocked at how cheap everything was. I could scarcely believe my eyes. So I started going a little nuts and this is when I started buying camera bodies, like FTbs for $10-20, A-1s and FEs for $40, and old Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s for $100-150, I even bought a nice Bronica ETRSi outfit (body, prism finder, 75mm lens, and three backs) for $129. It was an auction and there was just no bidding interest. I've since also put together a nice Pentax 67 outfit -- a camera I've always wanted but was never able to afford. Until recently.

 

All of the FD gear I own now, I bought during this buying frenzy that lasted for a few years. Several pieces were items that I couldn't easily afford back before the prices fell through the floor. Like a New F-1 with Motor Drive FN. Or an 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical, or a 55mm f/1.2 SSC -- two of 'em, at one point, in fact. I now own three EFs and three minty FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC lenses. Why? Folks practically gave me the EFs and the 50s came with outfits I bought and I've just never gotten around to selling them on eBay. Besides, I kinda like being able to mount all those 50s on some of my clean FD cameras.

 

Nowadays, because of a resurgent interest in film technology, and because a lot of digital users are using the old vintage lenses on their new cameras, prices for the old gear isn't as cheap as it was back in 2009, but you can still find really good deals if you're patient. I've gotten a lot more choosy, just because there isn't really much of anything I still need or want -- except for huge L lenses, which even if in FD mount are still quite expensive, albeit nowhere near their new EF counterparts.

Mine is a similar story. I've always had a mild interest in photography but could never justify the expense of an SLR when I was younger. About 18 months ago someone on "NextDoor" was giving away a T50 and some lenses. The latch on the battery door was broken and two old corroding batteries were lodged inside.

 

I love fixing old stuff and my dormant interest in SLRs was awakened so I picked it up. A little cleaning, a little duct tape, and I had a working SLR. A T50 is as basic of an SLR as you can get, - program mode only so of course I had to get something better. Since then I've had a T70, two AE-1P's, another T50, two Rebels, a Canonet (Rangefinder), an Elan and an Elan IIe. And those are just the Canons. I've also bought two Yashica TLRs and three Olympus OM cameras.

 

It wasn't always the cameras I was interested in, they were maybe attached to a lens I wanted or in one case, a tripod. And all along I was getting rid of cameras was well as buying them, just not as quickly. Over that time I've learned what I like and realized that this taking up too much of my time and too much space in my house. Even though a certain camera may appeal to me because it's ridiculously cheap, I've mostly gotten to the point where I can pass them up.

 

While I've not quite given up acquiring cameras completely, I think I'm finally selling them faster than I'm buying them. By the end of the year, hopefully all that will remain are the few cameras and lenses that I will actually use.

 

Looking back my behavior seems a little glutenous, but money wise I've probably come out ahead even after purchasing film and chemicals. It's still possible to get film cameras for almost nothing if you're patient. Still lots of good equipment sitting unused in closets everywhere that people just want to get rid of.

Edited November 12, 2017 by tomspielman

I use both..T90 fun, surprised sometimes hope smart it is. My 1v is not plastic...one could pound tent stakes with it...

Yeah, the 1v . . . that's the only EOS film camera that I really want. One of these days . . .

I have over a dozen older film cameras, oldest a 1932 Kodak Recomar. I had a T-50 and a T-70 that both quit on me at some point, both just electronically died. I still have many manual Canon's AL-AT, two AE-1's, and an F-1 with a plethora of FD lenses in a case. They are all in a display case in my shop except the F1, when I do use film it's always the F1, in my opinion probably the best camera that Canon ever made as well as most other manufactures. I started this fiasco in 1947 in high school photo class, I worked my entire summer vacation to buy my first 35mm, A Perfex w/Wollensack 3.5 F. then a Navy photog in Korea. There is just something about the F1 that takes me back to the time when I was sent on assignment I was EXPECTED to get the "shot", no burning up the air with multiple images like now. I now use 3 D series Nikons and a Fuji S2 but they just don't compare FEEL WISE to the F1. I still use the F1 on occasion especially with a planned trip, I learned to use "hearing aid" batteries in it. also use some of my better FD lenses on my Mirrorless camera with an adapter.

OH, I also never owned or used an EOS camera, I switched to Nikon when they came out and obsoleted my FL and FD lenses.

Edited December 11, 2017 by bill_force

Bill, I've traveled down the same paths as you, and I also agree that the original F-1 is just simply the best. Now, the New F-1 is a cracking good camera, but if I have to choose, I'll always go with the original. There's just something about it. And the FTb -- I owned an FTb for about a year before I bought my first F-1. Before I bought that old FTb, I didn't know butkus about photography. But I learned photography on that FTb. So when I finally got an F-1, I was ready for it. Hit the ground running, so to speak. And I never looked back. I bought my mirrorless camera so I could use my Canon FD lenses on a digital. But you know, when it's time for me to get some serious photography done, I don't take a digital out with me, I take a film camera. If it's 35mm I'm shooting, then it's usually my old F-1. Just cuz I like it so much, I understand how it works, and I'm comfortable with it. I also switched to Nikon after Canon changed mounts, but it took me a couple years to do it. Funny thing, though, I could never get the Canon stuff out of my head, so I started buying back into FD gear. These days, my largest collection of cameras and lenses is Canon FD. Nikon comes in second. Then Tamron -- so all my other SLRs will have good lenses to shoot with :cool: