Canon FD

[daveish182]

Does anyone like the new desciption added to Canon FD forum on the forum

list???

Also can anyone point me to a lens test of the M42 Carl Zeiss DDR Flek 35mm

f2.4?

[ben_hutcherson]

It's not quite accurate. Keep in mind that the EOS 1 wasn't introduced until '89, which is when Bush(senior) was inaugurated. Until then, there was no professional EOS body, and therefore still a market for the likes of the F-1 and T90. The 200mm 1.8L was also introduded in '89 in both EOS and FD mount. I believe that a few macro pieces which had no EOS equivalent continued to be made for several years thereafter. I've head as late as 1996(the Clinton years), and as early as '92.

[jeffrey_e]

No. If it is intended to be ironic, it is offensive. If it is intended to be offensive, it succeeds. Offensive as I find it, it is not as bad as the description of the Leica group which appears to be clearly intended to belittle, and as such it is gratuitously offensive.

[sergio_ortega7]

Phillip must have written it. Those who were around here when photo.net first started (nearly ten years ago?) will recall Phillip Greenspun's peculiar sense of humor. He's an acquired taste. If he really wanted to offend, you'd know it.

[john_f._lemke]

I think it's funny. It's Mr. Greenspun's site, he can stamp it anyway he wants. Better than trying to pc (politically correct) our little community into total blandness.

 

I'd add another poster's words to the description for this forum. "The most civil and friendly on the site."

[14mm 2.8l]

My 50th anniversary Jan 1st 1988 Canon dealer price list includes EOS 620 & Eos 650 bodies and 15 different EF lenses. I do not have a 1987 price list and my 1986 dealer wholesale sheets include no Eos. So I'd say 1987 is the birth year of EOS and product development occured during 1986. That would indeed be end of Reagan era when EF and EOS came to market.

 

I saw the new links page this morning. I am happy that FD survived and was not merged into the vast film camera abyss. We can still discuss topics with the mutual understanding that its all FD. Canon abandoned us years ago but photo.net has not ;^)

 

Lindy

[awahlster]

Well I have heard a number of people mention this description of our little corner of Photo.net I also heard some whinning on the Leica group personally I have never seen it and don't even know for sure where it is located at so I guees you could say I could careless. LOL

[gnashings]

Its obviously meant to be humorous. I didn't laugh, but I don't see the perceived offence either. Its about as funny as it is accurate - but can anyone explain why it could possibly be offensive to anyone other than the person who may come across as ignorant by writing it?

 

I think if that description truly offends you, you should really take a few steps back and try to apply a little perspective to your life. You may find that your priorities need some serious reconsideration.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear Daveish 182. I don't about lens test of the CZJ Fektogon 35 mm f/ 2,4 but i've seen severals images shhot by this lens, owned by friend of mine. The optical performance are quite very good overall.

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli

[peter_evans4]

<p>The <a

href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html">FD-mount

T60 was released in 1990</a>. That's a year after Reagan retired to

obscurity. After 1990, a large percentage of FD-mount cameras kept

chugging along as well as ever, something that can't be said about

Reagan.</p><p>I don't find the forum description at all offensive.

It's (uninterestingly) wrong, but mostly it strikes me as another

way in which Photo-net, which I'd thought would be inherently

international, is robustly US-centric. (Entirely unrelated to Texas,

the big Fuji rangefinders are "Texas Leicas"; all prices are in USD,

etc.) FD-mount equipment has been used all over the place, but if

you're going to choose one nation then why the US and not Japan? Why

not "the Shōwa/Hirohito years" (also wrong by one year),

or "the Kaifu years" (actually correct)? I'd like to think that such

concepts aren't too difficult for Youessians to grasp, and that the

required knowledge isn't too advanced.</p>

[w_t1]

"if you're going to choose one nation then why the US and not Japan?"

 

read the "about us" on the home page, let's see, photonet appears to have been started by an American at MIT, last I checked MIT was in Mass., which I believe is in the USA. US Dollars? Go figure, don't know why we'd want to use those. Checked the WSJ lately? Oh sorry, I'm sure they're biased as they are American. I think you are free to start your own photo site in Venezuela or wherever you think is better.

[sergio_ortega7]

Photo.net in Venezuela, W.T.?....You're such a devil.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>read the "about us" on the home page, let's see, photonet appears to have been started by an American at MIT, last I checked MIT was in Mass., which I believe is in the USA.</em></p><p>Yes of course. But why the fixation with the country that you happen to be living in? I'd thought that that was tabloid-level thinking, but:</p><p><em>Checked the WSJ lately?</em></p><p>No. The publisher was leaving piles of free copies on a desk in the entrance of one of the buildings I use every day for over a year; despite the appealing price, most sat there unclaimed. I tried it a couple of times; too boring.</p><p><em>Oh sorry, I'm sure they're biased as they are American.</em></p>No, it's biased as it exemplifies a particular strand of Americanness.</p><p><em>I think you are free to start your own photo site in Venezuela or wherever you think is better.</em></p><p>Thanks for the handy reminder!</p>

[philg]

I guess Ronald Reagan isn't any more popular with some folks here than in my hometown of Cambridge, MA! "During the reign of King Bush I" is probably more accurate, but not as funny. Nancy and Ronald were comical; Bush (both Kings I and II) and Clinton are not funny for some reason.

[peter_evans4]

C'mon Philip: Clinton and Dubya not funny? I find them hilarious, in their different ways. (Unfortunately the hilarity is overshadowed by other factors, but that's another story.)

[bill_force]

Clinton are not funny for some reason

 

Not till they start waffling about their past indecretions, then they are comical.