Canon FD POTM -- Canon FD lenses on Canon FD bodies, Sept 2014

<p>A few people have commented on the fact that some of the photos posted to Alex's POTM are taken on digital bodies using adapted lenses. I'd like to offer another POTM for those who want just photos taken on Canon FD bodies. I'm in no way wanting to compete with Alex's monthly offering; rather, for you who want to ensure there is a thread representing FD lenses on Canon FD bodies, here you are. </p>

<p>I encourage you who have the equipment to contribute to BOTH threads. If this thread doesn't garner much interest, it won't be renewed so here's your chance to support "all FD" photos.</p>

<p>I'll kick this off with a photo taken on an F1N (LA Olympics) with Ektar 100.</p><div></div>

<p>Another shot from the same roll. Many of you have probably browsed these same halls (Bellagio, I think).</p><div></div>

<p>I appreciate your feelings, and the good spirit motivating your post.</p>

<p>However, in my opinion, there's a danger in too much 'exclusiveness' and 'purity' on forums here. The result is that the potential participants list is reduced to a very small number. This is supposed to be fun, not ritual cleanliness.<br>

IMO, such rigid 'standards' have resulted in considerable fall off in the number of posts on some forums that used to be popular.</p>

<p>Purity of Essence? Much overrated.</p>

<p>oops</p>

<p>Canon T90 200mm f2.8 IF at f5.6</p><div></div>

<p>I'm with you JDM. My comments on this post pretty much line up my feelings on the idea:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00cnE6</p>

<p>This will be the proverbial litmus test. If lots of people get energized and contribute, great. If not, this will be the one-and-only thread. Alex has a great thread with a lot of history and followers and if this effort is tried and falters, then the few that want the "purity" will have their answers on what the rest of the forum supporters want. </p>

<p>Lastly, I've learned so much from Photo.Net in the past six or so years I've been active. Both from Canon FD and the Leica and Rangefinder forums. I feel I need to do something routinely which gives back some of my energy. This thread, if it's successful, is a way to do that. Ironic considering I was probably one of the early adopters of the "adapted" lens on MILC cameras with my NEX-7. </p>

<p>We'll see how this goes. </p>

<p>Fair enough.<br>

Now is the time for people to put up or shut up, I guess.</p>

Carl, September's FD photo gallery has an excellent selection of film images...the majority even.

<p>Rick -- I noticed that. And that's great news. But I promised on the thread I referred to earlier that I'd run the thread this month -- there seemed to be interest -- so I did as I said I'd do. </p>

Carl, could you tell us about your Canon 21/4 lens?

<p>My experience with various Forums for the past 10-15 years is that threads separated with specific purposes are beneficial, almost required for efficient / effective membership usage.<br>

For example, a passion of mine is studying the history of, and shooting / hunting 1770's-1790's Flintlock rifles and smoothbores just like our country's Settlers lived with day in and day out centuries ago. The Traditional Muzzleloading Forums I frequent have a series of categories for various timeframes...for the various forms of technology the Settlers brought with them...Matchlocks, Flintlocks, Caplocks, etc.<br>

If someone has a particular interest in the 1770's-1790's timeframe and threads associated with that slice, it would be impractical to have one large forum of endless posts...but their separation into various categories makes finding / interacting very practical and efficient.<br>

In the case of photography threads it's the same thing...if I check in and want to see what some folks are doing with film & film cameras today, I don't want to have to wade through scores of various threads / posts in some general listing somewhere...seems like a single minded thread consisting of film & film cameras makes sense.<br>

But others mileage many vary...</p>

A friend just attended the annual vintage car events in Monterey...and found that things have fragmented into many

smaller shows and collector groups so that it's impossible to see 'em all. There's the Concorso for Italian machines,

Legends of the Autobahn for German...oh wait, the Porsche people wanted their own location so they're not with the

Legends now! No togetherness, no community spirit, everyone gets their own spot away from the rest. A sad commentary

on our society today!

 

Please don't do that here. It's a small enough forum with room for everybody.

 

Being the Canon FD forum, guys and gals shooting film should be able to post anywhere, anytime. And I hope they will.

<p>Oh boy. This discussion came up in the prior thread I referenced earlier. I made a commitment to the group to try it because that's what I thought some people wanted. I don't mean for it to be divisive I just thought some people wanted it and I wanted to help and was curious to explore the idea.</p>

<p>However, the discussion is probably a healthy one (albeit one I thought we vetted in the earlier thread) so people should feel free to post their thoughts. Maybe a photo or two as well ;^)</p>

<p>Alex -- what are you curious about in regards to the 21/4? The fact that Canon never made one? Ha. I was thinking on the Leica half of my brain (Cosina/Voigtlander makes one). That lens used was my trusty Canon FD 20/F2.8! Or maybe my FD 17/F4.0. Sorry, I do miss EXIF data at times like this. Let's just settle for "one of my really wide angle FD lenses." Thanks for the catch.</p>

 

<p>

"...A sad commentary on our society today!.....Please don't do that here. It's a small enough forum with room for everybody.....Being the Canon FD forum, guys and gals shooting film should be able to post anywhere, anytime. And I hope they will...."

</p>

<p>LOL...good gracious...sounds like any attempts to organize things that would allow simpler / quicker searching / reviewing will automatically result in the forum going negative ???</p>

<p>Well, I don't have a dog in this fight, so it's no sweat as far as I'm concerned...and guys & gals can still post anywhere they want...I had simply made the suggestion about a dedicated 'film body' thread as a result of related sentiments expressed by other members in previous threads...not by me as I no longer use film.</p>

<p>Carl has the right idea...run a 'film body' thread for 2-3 cycles and see what settles out...as long as there's no 'forum rules change', people aren't forced to post there anyway.</p>

<p>First, a sincere "thank you" to Carl for starting this thread/experiment. Personally I agree with the sentiments expressed previously elsewhere, namely that nearly any FD-related traffic is good for the forum at this point, but what the heck, this might be fun. At least no one has shown up to inform us that "You're not having fun right!" yet. And it will be interesting to see if those advocating "purity" actually care enough to contribute here.</p>

<p>Anyway, here is nearly the Platonic ideal of a banal photograph, albeit taken on genu-wine Canon equipment: T90 and 50/1.4 FDn. One block off of Elm Street in Manchester, NH, shot at a wide, but unrecorded, aperture on Fujicolor 200 print film.</p><div></div>

<p>The crux of the matter is do Canon FD lenses perform exactly the same on digital cameras as on Canon F.D. ones ?, I don't know the answer to this question having never owned a digital camera, but it stands to reason that images recorded on a digital sensor will not look the same as one recorded on film.</p>

<p>Canon Ftbn 50mm 1.8 <br>

<img src="http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a574/king3sparrow/ftbn_zps1947fafa.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I have some lenses for sale if anyones interested http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/161471119113?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649</p>