I have both types of cameras and I can answer the question to a certain extent. One reason is that you can get great FD lenses for a bargain. Another is that if you're looking for more of a "classic" SLR, an A-series camera fits the bill. And I also realize that some people aren't really that interested in FD cameras but instead use FD lenses on modern digital cameras. Maybe my real question is why is it that even mid range EOS SLRs like the Elan can be had for almost nothing while less capable FD cameras sell for much more? For example, this past weekend I bought an Elan, two lenses (one pretty nice one), a great camera bag, and a decent tripod for $50. I was really only interested in the tripod and figured I could easily sell the lenses and the camera on Ebay to cover the costs. But checking the prices on eBay for an Elan made me wonder if it was worth the bother. I can still cover my costs with the lenses, so it's not that big of a deal, I was just mildly surprised. I already have an Elan IIe. There are things I like about it, but since I don't use it that much, I find the multitude of controls a little confusing. The Elan is a bit simpler and seems like a nice camera. Both have very quiet film transport. Both have similar controls to modern Canon DSLRs and can take the same lenses. Both have auto-focus, AEB, and other features to help make sure you get the shot. They also have aperture priority modes which most canon A and T series Canons do not. So why all the love for FD film cameras and none for EOS film cameras? I would ask this question in the EOS forum but they seem to talk mostly about digital cameras.