What Exactly Am I Missing By Not Having a F1New?

I'm sure the profit margin was higher on the AE finder than FN finder.

 

Canon may have opted for two separate finders as a throwback gesture to those pro's who owned the original F-1. The FN finder was the standard finder (worked just like the prism finder on the original F-1) and the AE finder was for those daring pro's who were willing to try aperture-preferred automation. Shutter-speed automation was an add-on feature too, you need a motor drive or winder for it to work. Whatever, the F-1N was a great systems camera that could be configured any way you wanted. Very versatile.

 

Funny - I did a wedding a few years ago using my New F-1 with the motor drive. I had my wife carry it a couple of times and she wondered how I could lug that thing around all day. With the 12 AA batteries it weighs about the same as a baby elephant. At least with my F1n the batteries for the motor are in a separate case I can carry over my shoulder or in my pocket.

The FTb-N came today! It's wonderful! After putting in a new 1.35v Wein battery the meter worked perfectly. There wasn't even the tiniest scuff mark or scratch on it. Even the old style 50/1.8 FD lens was flawless. It looks like new and all for just $140 plus shipping. There is hope for eBay yet folks. When the new roll of Delta 100 (set for 200 asa) gets exposed and developed it can be determined whether of not there are problems. Deb and I took thirteen images so far today. This camera is everything hoped for and the F-1 is no longer in the running at least for now.

Enjoy your FTb. A great camera that will never disappoint. An FTb was my first serious 35mm camera, so many decades back. And it's still one of my favorite SLR's. Good old fashioned mechanical engineering at its best.

This really amazes me. I will try it out as i have a smoke stack finder for macro. Odd too that I sold these things for several years and the Canon tech rep never mentioned it. Guess they wanted to sell the more expensive finder.

 

Canon did not explicitly advertise that AE was possible with the plain prism, but they didn't make any attempt to discourage it either. Almost from the moment the "New, New F1" appeared, all the magazines mentioned this handy "bonus" capability in their tests (Pop Photo, Modern Photo, Camera 35, etc). But publicity and enthusiasm for the re-imagined F1 was strangely muted, possibly because those drawn to it were mostly pros who took their tools for granted (as opposed to the fervent passion expressed by many non-pro buyers of Nikon's competing F3: heck, even Pentax's slow-selling LX and Olympus fading OM4 generated more of a cult than the New F1). It is sorta odd that this nifty undocumented feature was not often picked up by web discussions years later: if you weren't around during the magazine heyday it could slip under the radar.

Edited January 5, 2021 by orsetto

As well as I know, the F-1 is the competition for the Nikon F.

 

They have many of the same features and options, such as motor

drive, changeable viewing screens and such.

 

It also seems that the used prices are about the same, though there is the complication

of different finders that make the comparisons harder.

 

The Nikon F that I have has a non-working meter, which I haven't tried so hard to fix.

 

The non-meter Nikon F finders seem to be more expensive.

 

Otherwise I have a Canon FTb which I like, and use when I want a manual

mode FD mount SLR. I haven't looked for an F-1 (or n or N).

But the Canon New F1 is a competitor to the Nikon F3 which it didn't do well back then. Today it commands higher price than the Nikon F3.

But the Canon New F1 is a competitor to the Nikon F3 which it didn't do well back then. Today it commands higher price than the Nikon F3.

 

Hmm... that's because the

New F-1's are so rare... the

F3 was in production for

about 20 years...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

And the F-1n is competition for the F2?

 

It seems that Nikon didn't put the model on the front until the F4, so you

just have to know which one it is. I believe that the serial number has it.

 

The Canon models all say F-1 on the front, so you also don't know which

one is which.

 

The Nikon F and original F-1 have an optional 250 shot back.

Do the later models of either one support that?

And the F-1n is competition for the F2?

 

It seems that Nikon didn't put the model on the front until the F4, so you

just have to know which one it is. I believe that the serial number has it.

 

The Canon models all say F-1 on the front, so you also don't know which

one is which.

 

The Nikon F and original F-1 have an optional 250 shot back.

Do the later models of either one support that?

 

The original F-1 was officially introduced in spring, 1971 if I'm right. The Nikon F2 came out in 1972. So both the F-1 and F-1n were F2 competitors.

 

The Nikon F3 said so on the front plate.

 

While the F-1 and F-1n took an 250 exposure back, the F-1N took a 100 exposure back (FN 100). Smaller, lighter and less bulkier than a 250 exposure back.

My father has been a Canon person since the Canon VI, and now uses only Canon DSLRs.

 

When his Pellix got stolen, he bought an AT-1, about the same time I got my Nikon FM.

Both of us weren't interested in the more automatic modes of other cameras.

(I got my FM just after the FE came out.)

 

There are reasonably comparable models between Nikon and Canon, but it is confusing

to use both of them. As well as I remember, the focus and aperture go the other way.

(Companies that make lenses for both must hate this.) I think the mount goes the

other way, too.

 

Otherwise, for the OP, the FTb is a fine camera, and usually costs a lot less.

You can buy one, along with lenses, and play with it until you find a F-1N for

the right price. Then decide which one you want to carry around.

I just noticed something. Just how many versions of the F1 were there? I only owned the original F1.

 

I was under the impression that there were 3 versions:

 

the original F1

the F1n, and

the New F1.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because I certainly don't want to confuse readers with my incorrect assumptions.

 

Thank you.

How many versions of Tri-X are there?

In the data sheet it says:

"The company reserves the right to change and improve product characteristics at any time."

 

I suspect Canon would also say that. At some point, the improvements are big enough that we

call it different, but it seems that Kodak and Canon don't.

 

(Reminds me of the 737-MAX, which Boeing designed to fly the same as previous 737 models,

even though it was actually very different.)

 

Now, at some point Kodak changed to 400TX, which is different than previous Tri-X films, but also still Tri-X.

 

In the case of TMax, they change between "Professional TMax 100" and TMax 100 Professional", or maybe another permutation.

 

It seems that the one called F-1n by many people isn't so different, but the one called F-1N is more different.

 

Nikon at least managed to go from F to F2 to F3 and on to the F6, while Canon calls them all F-1.

 

I have an earlier Nikon FM, where you can shoot without pulling out the wind knob.

Later ones use the wind knob both as a meter switch and shutter switch, but I don't know

that anyone considers them different models.

I just noticed something. Just how many versions of the F1 were there? I only owned the original F1.

 

I was under the impression that there were 3 versions:

 

the original F1

the F1n, and

the New F1.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because I certainly don't want to confuse readers with my incorrect assumptions.

 

Thank you.

 

What you list is correct, three versions, all called F-1. The "small "n" and large "N" are what we use to differentiate between the three models.

I just processed the first roll of film from the new/old FTb-N. My conclusion is that after years of using the center-weighted meters of the A series cameras, it's going to take some getting used to the 12% meter that is also found in the F-1. I need to pay attention to exposing for the shadows. Or like the manual suggests - take two meter readings (one for the highlights and one for the darkest shadows) and take the average. I'll need to take good notes too.

Personal preference, but I greatly prefer the 12% metering rectangle over center-weighted metering. You always know exactly what you are metering with the 12% rectangle. There's a learning curve no doubt, but most quickly pick that up. And, with negative film, when in doubt, expose for the shadows.

First camera with a spot meter I knew was when my dad bought a (then new) Pellix.

 

The meter cell pops up behind the mirror, just in front of the focal plane shutter.

You know exactly the part that the cell covers.

The FTb is a great camera, one of Canon's best-thought-out classic-era bodies. If you prefer manual exposure and mechanical shutter, but don't need motor drive or removable prism, in use there's no appreciable difference between it and the (original) pro F-1. Its market position/pricing was roughly comparable to Nikon's popular Nikkormat FTn, but the FTb was arguably more elegantly designed and easier to operate for most photographers. It also had better viewfinder coverage: the Nikkormats are built like tanks but have viewfinder cropping as bad as the 3x cheaper Soviet Cosmorex. Nikon crippling their enthusiast bodies just enough to avoid cannibalizing their pro bodies is nothing new.

 

Its a shame one of the best features of the New F-1, ability to change the meter pattern by changing screens, just didn't come across as marketable as expected in 1981. If anything it turned a lot of people off at first, because you couldn't spontaneously choose a pattern to suit the subject simply by flicking a switch. It was a an uncharacteristically conservative move for Canon: perhaps an attempt to preserve the mystique of the 12% metering manual-exposure original F-1, while adding the option of fluid AE operation if you changed the screen (and prism- d'oh). A nifty idea on paper, the initial public reaction was "WTH is this "optional, external" nonsense? Why isn't AE/manual and spot/average pattern integrated in all New F-1 bodies out of the box?" Then again, Nikon fans weren't exactly thrilled with the fixed, weird 80/20 centerweighting of the new F3 either: at least Canon gave you a choice (clumsy as it was to enable).

 

The whole Canon F-1, F-1n and New F-1 (aka F-1N) naming scheme, with all three using just "F-1" on the front, was a little annoying back in the day and can be very confusing now for younger film photographers who didn't themselves grow older in sync with these model releases. It would have been much more logical and clear (not to mention more marketable) if Canon had named the New F-1 something like F-1e to denote the new electronic shutter and AE capabilities. By that point, their image had long since shifted it from "mechanical masters" to "electronic innovators", and enough pros were already using far less reliable AE cameras that few in need of a new pro body would have hesitated to jump on a blatantly proud Canon F-1e for electronic.

 

Some of this naming mess is no doubt traceable to the early 70s Nikon vs Canon battle for pro users, and Canon miscalculating where exactly Nikon would go in terms of name updates to the original F body. At the time of the first F-1 introduction, Canon likely thought they'd be competing with Nikon's original "F" branding indefinitely, and figured it would be snarky and catchy to use almost the same name with "F-1". I don't think Canon expected Nikon to introduce a completely new F2 ten minutes after they launched their flagship F-1.

 

Nikon surprisingly omitted their traditional huge "F" branding from the F2 body and prism, assuming you'd "just know" it was their new pro body from the look of it (which was very distinct from the first F). The only place you'll find "F2" engraved on an F2 body is in the tiny serial number behind the shutter button: all these decades later, its really weird that Nikon's greatest classic camera has no discernible model naming on it whatsoever. So it might simply have been a very rare instance where Canon misread a competitor's tea leaves. Understandable, since all thru the '60s Nikon exploited that big "F" to the hilt as premium branding, up to and including the near-denigration of their own non-pro bodies (which didn't even rate Nikon naming them "Nikon" until 18 years after the F arrived).

 

Despite being invisible on the actual camera, Nikon flogged the "F2" moniker relentlessly in advertisements and packaging. By 1974 there wasn't a photographer alive who hadn't seen the stylized, golden F2 logo at least 400 times, even if they had zero interest in Nikon (the F3 may have been available twice as long, but nobody remembers the marketing for it the way the F2 logo was seared into their retinas). So maybe Canon was trapped with F-1n naming for their new AE pro model, esp after pics began leaking of the upcoming Nikon F3 (which restored the model name to the front of the camera, not coincidentally exactly where Canon stamped F-1 on their pro body).

 

Flash forward to today, and the Canon New F-1 is more collectible and cultish than the somewhat boring F3. While it started off slow, the New F-1 could be considered the opening salvo that began toppling Nikon with sports photographers (the F3 was great in many ways, but wasn't as versatile or optimized for sports/action as F-1N).

Edited January 9, 2021 by orsetto

Mention of sports photography reminds me of the almost forgotten F-1 high speed:

 

Canon: Canon F-1 High-Speed Price Guide: estimate a camera value

 

which doesn't say "F-1" on it, or the F-1N high speed:

 

Canon: Canon F-1N High-Speed Price Guide: estimate a camera value

 

which does say "F-1" on it, at least in the pictures shown.

 

It might have been fun if Canon named their next camera F-3 after the Nikon F2,

such that Nikon had even numbers, and Canon odd numbers.

 

Otherwise in DSLRs, Nikon has the D(number) and Canon the (number)D naming.

No confusion with those names.

Ohterwise, as far as only putting the model into the serial number, the FM and FE

both don't say that on the front, only on the tiny print of the serial number.

 

The FM2 and FE2, though, say so on the front.

I dunno... I think using interchangeable screens to change the metering pattern was the only way Canon could offer variable metering patterns and still keep the beam splitter metering. I, for one, am glad Canon chose to use a "clunky" method to incorporate the secondary metering patterns and to maintain their 12% selective area metering as the primary method.

 

As for the naming convention, I think it was an article (Herbert Keppler?) in Popular Photography back in the 80s when the New F-1 debuted that explained it: Canon originally named their camera "F-1" to mean "Flex #1" as in, the #1 (best) reflex camera in the world. Given that, they couldn't name its successor "F-2", which then make it the #2 (second best) reflex camera in the world. Therefore, it became the "New F-1". I don't know how true that was but makes sense to me...

 

Not sure why it's such an issue. A lot of products reuse the same name over and over. Cars, for example. How many generations of "Mustang" are there and they're all just called Mustang (well, except for the Mustang II)...

Edited January 9, 2021 by steven_endo

Having the meter pattern controlled by the screen installed was a clever engineering-level choice that didn't correlate well with how most photographers wanted to work with pattern selection. It allowed Canon to stick with the beamsplitter meter design they'd been using for many years, but it missed the point of having pattern choice at all. Perhaps if there hadn't already been two decades worth of lower-end SLRs with built-in spot/averaging patterns at the flip of a switch, nobody would have complained. But like Nikon with the F3, Canon was forced into compromises in the transition from traditional manual pro SLR to AE pro SLR. Neither company threaded that needle perfectly for all potential users: Canon over-estimated while Nikon under-estimated demand for carryover traditional features.

 

Herbert Keppler indeed made the "number 1 flex" remark in his review of the original F-1 published in the May 1971 Modern Photography. But he was fairly clear he was pulling that remark out of his *** and it didn't come from a source at Canon. As good a guess as anyone else' at the time: it was still wonky to name a competitor to the world-recognized pioneering Nikon F as "F-anything". Around the same time, Olympus made a similar blunder branding their new smaller SLR body "M-1" during its first production run. That it never occurred to Y. Maitani that Leica would have a cow over it is astonishing: of course Olympus backed down, added the "O", and we got the classic OM system.

 

Fortunately cars always have model year as a fallback identifier to the name. If you're in the market for a vintage Mustang, you pretty much have a date range in mind to get a specific body style or drivetrain. Top of the line pro SLRs can't really recycle exactly the same name (without a modifier) or it gets confusing. This did annoy Canon camera dealers and buyers in the '80s, and remained irritating as the years wore on. Water under the bridge now, tho it can get real tedious combing thru eBay or KEH looking for the scarcer mechanical F-1 in a sea of electronic F-1 listings.

Edited January 9, 2021 by orsetto

Yes cars have the model year.

 

Though one car that I used to have was built early in the model year, I believe actually December

of the year before. Some parts were the ones for the previous model year.

 

As with cameras and film, they make many small changes along the way.

 

I don't know about the trademark rules for letters.

Intel found out some years ago that you can't trademark three digit numbers,

so called their processor Pentium instead of the next number, 586.