Why do we still use the old FD kit?

Are we all stiil using the Canon FD series because we are not

interested in the new EOS stuff or is it because it is so cheap to

buy on the used market? Or is it some other reason?

 

The reason why I am still with the FD stuff is because of my T90. I

love this camera and cannot afford to replace it with a "pro" level

EOS. I am able to buy lenses for it now at unbelivably low prices - I

live in South Africa so I pay in Rands (=$0.10) - for example I

bought a mint SCC Canon 200mm for $15.00 the other day.

 

I have a whole collection of other Canon bodies - I only really use

an AE1-P (second to the T90) and "collect" the rest. If you have a

close look at the design and manufacturing cost of these old bodies

you get an idea of what they would cost to make today - all metal

construction, machined brass and alloy chassis. None of the modern

EOS's come close (of the ones I've seen anyway). I have noticed that

the glass on the new EOS series is generally very good - better "in

general" than the FD glass - must be the new manufacturing and

computer technology I guess?

 

So why do you still buy/collect/use a totally obsete camera system?

I use it because it is not totally obsolete. I can still buy film for it and process it and produce pictures with it, and if I want digital output, I can scan the film at higher resolution than I would get from a digital body. I'm not interested in autofocus or even most of the automatic features I have on my FD cameras, which I use almost exclusively in manual mode. I don't often need zoom lenses, and the newest EOS prime lenses are not really that much better, except for some of the ultrawides, than the lenses of the FD era. The new TS lenses might be an attraction, but I get better results with my large format view cameras, so I don't really need TS lenses for a 35mm system.

Sorry - I can actually spell "obsolete" - and based on David's answer I withdraw the question :-)

I feel most comfortable with manual focus. When shooting modern dance I feel very much connected with my FD gear. The T-90 flash syncs at 1/250; that's the main reason I got it. FD prime lenses are top notch. I have a couple of 3rd party, narrow range zooms that do well for casual shooting (35-70 and 70-210). I also have an A-1 with the small motor drive.

 

I've stood on the sidelines watching the parade of fancy schmancy AF SLR's go by, waiting for digital to reach an acceptable price/performance point. I've known all along the high-tech SLR's are doomed. Digital does what they do better and more conveniently. Larger film formats offer better image quality (I have a medium format outfit).

 

I recently went digital (Minolta 7i). I'll probably get rid of my A-1 and cheap zooms. The T-90 and prime lenses still have a place in my bag.

Cost, quality, and ease of manual control, mostly in that order. My AE-1P used to belong to my grandfather, when he was into that sort of thing, so I've got that going for keeping the system too.

 

I used to wish for autofocus in low-light, because my vision isn't so great, but then I discovered that autofocus doesn't always work so well in low-light either.

1) Because the FD lenses were good and still are good. 2) Never felt the absolute need for autofocus in what I shoot and the manufacturers haven't sold me 3)The T-90 is a sophisticated camera that does just about everything but autofocus4) I hate spending money to buy new lenses. But,I don't buy and collect any more FD stuff and won't. I don't collect cameras for looking at so much. And lastly,I bought half of my FD material new and still don't consider it obsolete. I can shoot an event, or take on a job with Canon FD equipment. If one has two bodies and some redundency,whats the big deal. Lastly, there are at least three places I know of where I could send an A-1 and a T-90 and order up an overhaul for about $200.00. What can one buy new for that. The little Powershot G-3 that I have designs on later this year will run me over a grand with a couple CF cards and doodads. But Lee, the beauty of the older Canons is not to be denied. So why did I sell the original F-1, what I consider the sharpest designed camera ever--because you can't keep 'em all. (Says he,looking at the raft of obsolete camera bags hanging on hooks. And old smaller waist pants. And some grizzled wallets that I just may need some day...its a psychological thing,Lee as you well know and not subject to rationality or great argument.) I have seen folks say "Switched to EOS,never looked back." I say "Stuck with FD and will switch when I choose to" Aint happened yet. Sorry for longwinded thing,but the existence of this forum is testimony that the autofocus thing is not the ne plus ultra of photographic design. Ask me again in three years though:-) Aloha,Gerry

Ditto to David, et al......

 

For years I shot the FTb-n (3 of them), the A1 (four of them), and finally the T90 (2 of those.)

 

I now shoot the EOS 3. The main reason I switched was to gain the "L" series zooms along with the "IS" technology. It had the additional benefit of reducing the load on my tired, old back for my landscape/nature work. It's funny though, I still shoot on manual (but I do use the auto-focus) and carry a handheld meter. I guess old habits are hard to break. But this weekend, I'm going to a small local festival and am going to shoot in some sort of AE mode and use the evaluative metering function - just for kicks - then I'll probably go right back to my old ways......

 

I guess the truth is, I switched to get better glass and reduce the number of primes I was carrying.

 

However, I do still have my good ol' FTb-n and some basic primes. I actually use it quite frequently - You know, for back-up and the "use it or lose it" rule. But it is also for security purposes - for when the fancy stuff fails......

 

Regards,

Hi Lee,

 

I reject the premise that just because a product is no longer supported it is "totally obsolete" (or spelling to that effect). Are classic cars rendered totally obsolete? Of course not.

 

As for the positive qualities of the high-quality, affordable FD system, they have been long established in this forum.

I use it because my T70 was the first camera I ever

bought (back in 1984) and it's still taking GREAT

photos. I'm down to 3 lenses for it currently -

28mm, 50mm + 500mm Reflex - but it is a great alternative

to Medium Format and P&S. Every system has it's time and place.

The Canon FD system endures....

"If you have a close look at the design and manufacturing cost of these old bodies you get an idea of what they would cost to make today."

 

I bought my Canon AE1 kit in 1981 for about $200 (I think). Adjusted for inflation, that would be $397 today.

 

see http://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp

Hi. Thanks for your interesting responses - Maybe I just needed some reassurance :-)

 

Bailey - no offence intended by the last question of my posting, It was meant to get you going and withdrawn after David's answer. I reject the premise too.

 

Garvey - I am talking about the manufacturing processes, tools and skills required in a factory to make these old beasts (T90/F1n). The machining (milling) cost of one of those little brass bits costs more than a EOS chassis does to make.

 

Anyway I am going to keep going with my FD stuff for a few more years!

I drive a 66 Ford Pickup truck my wife Drives a 67 Mustang. And I'm pateintly waiting for either one of them to wear out!

 

I own:

 

1)F-1N

 

1)T-90......................(Looking for a second)

 

2) A-1's w/MA motor drives

 

2) AE-1P's w/A2 winders

 

1) AE-1

 

Canonet G-III QL-17

 

Canon Demi S

 

23) FD mount lenses from 19mm to 600mm from Canon 24-400mm with a couple of Tokina AT-X zooms and a couple of Vivitar series 1 primes even a Rare Soligar 24-45mm f3.5-4.5 Wide Zoom

 

And a Butt load of the neatest Flashes, doublers, angle finders, close-up tubes, and almost everything on the wish list I made in College in 1976 when I got that first AE-1 (including stuff they didn't even make yet).

 

If I sold it all I couldn't get 2 bodies and 6 lenses that would be todays equal (top Pro level, which my F-1N and T-90 most certinly are) of my Canon FD system and if one of the bodies was Digital (D-60 or what ever the new one is they change so fast who can keep track) I doubt if I could own three lenses and a brown paper bag to carry them in.

 

SO excatly what kind of an IDIOT would that move make me. Beside you can't put a 24mm EOS lens on a 1953 Leica IIIf but you can put any FD mount lens on one for the cost of a $50.00 adapter. And when you figure out what a Leitz 24mm lens would cost for my Leica IIIf then My FD system is the very best buy going.

 

IMHO (but I am right and you know it)

 

Mark W.

 

Canonitis FD sufferer and collector of 1950s rangefinder cameras including Braun/Paxettes and Leica LTM

 

Show and tell: http://awahlster.tripod.com/photo

 

Don't meddle in the affairs of Dragons, as you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Because it's good! I sold my A1 today, to upgrade to EOS (shame, shame!) but I wish I could have afforded to keep it, I still love it, it's ease of use, not having to scroll through functions to get 2 sec timer or multi exposures, it's heavy solid feel that fits better in my hand then a thousand computer designed ergonomic EOS's.

Why the switch then? The glass. More important than the body is the lens by a long shot and 2nd hand fd lenses in the UK are still as expensive as 2nd hand EF which is some cases have better technology.

But I still feel a traitor to my photographic beginnings. One day when I'm rich I'll buy another A1 with a 50mm 1.4, if only for the sheer pleasure of shooting with it!

Gee Wiz - you are brave but treacherous respondent!

 

I suggest that the FD range may be a tad old and you say you are abondonong it (for EOS) completely!!! The guys are going to rip you to shreds.

I have gone the other way, from EOS to FD.

 

My first camera was an EOS 1000F, not the best EOS I know but all I could afford at the time (bought new in 1992 I think). The EOS let me down big time by failing completely at my wedding (1998) - probably the worst time possible.

 

In looking to replace it I decided to go for the better build and affordability of FD. My father had a late 1970's AE-1 which still worked perfectly at my wedding - his photo's were better than the professional ones!!

 

I chose a used A-1 and have never looked back. It had just been serviced and cost me about £100.00 UK (albeit with a little ding on the prism). It has given me total reliability (it went EEE EEE once and scared me but then I read the instructions!), probably used only 2-3 batteries in nearly 4 years (the EOS ate £20.00 UK batteries in about 5 rolls) and has given me some brilliant pictures.

 

I have since added to my A-1 a mint AV-1 (nicely made but a bit crude to use) and an absolutely mint T-90 which is my preferred body for any situation. The T-90 is brilliant in every way.

 

I have a 50mm f1.4 which is much better than the 35-70 EOS standard zoom, a 35-70 FD zoom a 135mm f3.5 S.C, the 28mm 2.8 FD, a 80-210 F3.8 and another 50mm, the f1.8 FD.

 

The only problem with this kit is the seeming increase in popularity and/or rarity in the UK driving up prices. A good T-90 body is still £299.00 UK in camera shops near to me.

 

I will never change though, not until I can no longer buy service or equipment or film.

 

Joe

I love my FD kit - but there is one nagging temptation that makes me think about getting into EOS equipment. I can't afford to buy the really cool high end lenses (ie 300mm f2.8) even in an FD mount. But I can rent them in an EOS mount. I don't think anyone rents FD lenses anymore, at least not in Seattle.

The main reason I use FD is COST and IMAGE QUALITY. I'm a student paying my own way, and Canon FD is the one of the most widely-available systems to include quality optics at cheaper prices. I enjoy my late-model Vivitar 19-35/3.5-4.5, FDn 28/2.8, 50/1.4s (FDn and SSC), Tokina AT-X 60-120/2.8, Vivitar 70-210/3.5, and cheapy Soligor 400/5.6. A few flashes, two AE-1 series bodies, and an assortment of accessories juuuust fits into a Domke OutPack DayPack.

 

If I had the money, I'd be in EOS gear. Lighter, quieter, built-in motor drives, decent built-in flash, some EXCELLENT prosumer zoom lenses (28-105, 20-35, 100-300/5.6L), ultra-fast (USM motors), reliable AF, etc.

 

But that won't happen for quite some time!

I love my T90, and will never sell it. I still always carry it. But now I carry two cameras. The other is a 630. The T90 always has a 28-70 Cosina zoom which is sharper and more contrasty than any Canon zoom I have found. But the 630 is lighter, as are the lenses. I can carry more lenses without killing my badly damaged back. With the 28-105, and 22-55 USM lenses(and the 100-300 coming soon) the EOS provides lightning fast focus, so I can concentrate on composition not focus, and the lenses are far superior. That glass! My god!!!!That GLASS!!!!!SHAAAAAARP!!!!!!!!CONTRASTY!!!!!!!!!!!!Can you say hard-on?

Except for speed and IS technology, I'd put my FD lenses up against any of the EOS glass.<br><br>

 

I have:<br>

2 T90 bodies<br>

300 TL Flash<br>

2 F1N bodies, 2 Motor Drives, 1 Winder FN, several finders<br>

199A and a 533G flash<br>

1 FTBn<br>

1 A1<br>

24 2.8 (equal to the EOS version)<br>

35-70 2.8-3.5 (The EOS L lens does have this one beat)<br>

35-105 3.5 (this one blows the 28-105 eos lens away)<br>

80-200 4.0 L (equal to the 70-200 L except for speed)<br>

50 1.2 L (Blows the 1.0 L away)<br>

135 2.0 (equal to the 135 2.0 L, should have been an L)<br>

300 4.0 (the EOS has the edge here)<br>

500 4.5 L (equal to the 500 4.5 L eos lens)<br><br>

 

These are just my opinions based on various lens tests and images I've seen of both systems. Why Canon didn't shift the 50 1.2L over to EOS beats me.<br><br>

 

All that said, I'm making the move to EOS myself. Autofocus as my eyes get worse, lens rentals, the advent of IS and faster lenses, getting the FD stuff repaired to name a few of the reasons.

Excellent quality lenses at a wonderfully low price. I could afford to buy a 50mm f1.2 lens at one tenth the cost of a similar Leica lens. Last week I was able to use it in a parking lot at night, shooting f1.2 at 1/15 of a second with iso 100 film. Some of the slides I shot are useable for my purpose. Also, the gear is cheap enough that I can leave it in the car knowing I won't feel too badly if it is stolen.

What I like about the FD system is it does ALMOST all of what I need at a reasonable cost. It is also durable and more compact than the EOS system.

 

I started with an AE-1 and Canon 35-70 F3.5-4.5, because it was half the price of an entry level Autofocus SLR and fitted my budget. I didn't know much about cameras at the time and a friend (who probably new little more than me) recomended Canon.

 

It turned out to be a good start although I soon abandoned the 35-70 zoom. Over the years, the initial purchase has grown into a system. Most of the purchases were between £80 and £120, although my T90 was £250.

 

Rather than list everything, here is what I actually use....

T90

AE1

Canon 28 f2.8

Canon 50 f1.4 SSC

Canon 100 f2.8 SSC

Canon 80-200 F4 (on semi-permanent loan from a friend)

Canon 300TL

Vivitar 283

Benbo 1 Tripod

 

As a mountaineer turned photographer I apreciate the ruggedness of FD equipment. Although I am a bit protective of the T90, I will happily take the AE1 and a selection of lenses on a winter mountaineering expedition. It is tough enough that I can sit on my rucsac without fear of damaging the camera. Small amounts of water to not seem to affect the minimal electronics in the body and the one time it got soaked it worked fine after a week drying out. Contrast this with a friends Nikon F80 that was used in very light rain for less then a minute and expired (ouch).

 

I gave the EOS system a serious look last year, as I was tempted by autofocus for the 25% of the time I take people or wildlife pictures. I concluded I would need to get one the pro bodies if there was to be any chance of it surviving Scottish mountain weather. This coupled with the cost of L series lenses vs FD SSC or L models was prohibitive. With the FD equipment I can subject it to a reasonable degree of abuse in the pursuit of dramatic picture and know if the worst happens it can be replaced relatively cheaply.

 

One last purchase has removed the last of my desire for an EOS upgrade. My wife now has a Canon G2 which I borrow shamelessly.

 

I will still continue to purchase FD equipment when I come across a good buy. In the UK FD equipment is getting rare in high street camera shops although specialists still carry a good range. Next on list will be a perspective control lens and maybe an F1 body. I would love the 85-300 F4.5, but have only seen it in an old Canon catalog and dread to think what the price would be if one actually turned up.

Cost. I wanted a 35mm camera with a 28mm lens where I could manually control focus and aperture to carry around with me all the time. If I wanted this in my usual EOS system, the minimum cost would have been $175. Instead, I picked up an AV-1 and 28/2.8 FD for a total of $75 on the auction site. If I lose it or it gets stolen, the financial impact is not as great. (I couldn't bear to lose the A-1 I already had. It was my first 35mm camera.)

This is a great thread.

 

I have been an FD user for many years, but I recently bought an Elan 7

because I felt like it was the first mid-range amateur EOS body that offered

easy mirror lockup and DOF preview in addition to autofocus.

 

It focuses so much faster and better than my 47-year-old eyes can. I get

wonderful contrast and resolution with the ef lenses I use (mostly the 35mm

prime, 70-200L, and 100mm macro), especially in black and white. I've also

never missed a shot because I forgot to advance the film lever!

 

Frankly, I don't feel like I gained much in terms of metering.

 

Toward the end, it seemed like I was fighting my FD gear more than loving it.

The A-1 froze up in cold weather. Lenses spring springs and get stuck on the

maximum aperature. Oil oozes onto the blades. And when that happens, you

pretty much have to buy new ones.

 

Having said all that, though, I like to bring out my black FTb and 50mm lens for

parades and fairs. Just the feel of it in my hands is reward enough, and it

takes great pictures, too. It'll be death-do- us-part.

Because of the sound my FTBn makes when I fire the shutter.

I have owned Canon FD for 25 years. I paid for quality which will last and it has. Most of my work is on the 50mm f1.4 which is razor sharp. For portraits I use a 70-150 f4 and the wide angle is a 28mm f2.8 All these lenses could no doubt be beaten by the latest EF models, but for an amateur, the overriding factor is nearly always the quality of the lighting and composition. I have my original 1977 FTb and an AE1. The FTb was serviced recently and is as good as new. I scan the negs with a Nikon Coolscan 4 and that can show the digital camera boys a thing or two!

With good second hand FD lenses still available, you can pick up superb camera gear at bargain prices.