The worst FD camera body, which one?

[doug_nelson3]

<p>Andy<br>

I stand corrected on the AE's. I have to look around in the finder for the aperture reading, as I wear glasses. For me, it's like an extra step. I like aperture priority, but it's because shutter speed is often not a factor in my shooting.</p>

 

[darin_cozine]

<p>I think all the FD bodies share certain drawbacks. None are compact or lightweight or quiet.<br>

Most have slow flash sinc speeds, and slow top shutter speeds compared to competitors.<br>

The A-series had issues with shutters and electronic reliability.<br>

The T-series were tweeners (in-between generations) and not designed well (t90 exeption).<br>

The F-series is clunky in many ways.<br>

That said, I think the T-series has some big loosers in the T50, T60, and T80.<br>

The T70 is ugly and loud and you cant see the shutter speed in the viewfinder. Othewise its a great camera with advanced metering and highly underrated.<br>

I have not used any of the rarer A-series but the AE-1, AE1p, and A1 are all pretty good.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>"Not compact lightweight or quiet" - compared to what, Topcon, Miranda or nikon F?? really- the A-series came out in the mid 70s and were considerably smaller and lighter than anything else of the period, except Olympus OM-1.<br>

Slow synch and top shutter speeds? remember the time period mid to late 70s - top speed them was 1/2000 sec, and most horizontal shutters has1/60, you are comparing them to mid to late 80s from others, when the last A-series (AL-1) came out in early 1982 or late 81.<br>

The A- series shutter had a problem (the "squeak"), but as long as it was kept properly lubed, the shutters were accurate. I have times all my series against my F-1s and they are all right on.<br>

F- series clunky - the last F-series (excepting the New F-1) came out in 1974. compared to the F and F2 and everything else of that tme period, they were NOT clunky - again i think your historical perspective is clouded. The only pain that most F-series shared was meter on/off switches. these were replaced with shutter button meter on/ off in the A-series and new F-1. You must have never used a new F-1.</p>

 

[tomscott]

<p>The EF was released in '73 and had a flash synch of 1/125 and weighed in at a whopping 1.6lbs.</p>

[steven_kandlik]

<p >Kevin</p>

<p >I’ve used the A1, T60, 70, 80, and 90 at one time or another and would not turn any away. In defense of the T60, I’ve had mine since ’94 and it’s still works. As you say, each body has distinct features; features and cost usually determine my choice.</p>

<p >Steve</p>

<p > </p>

<p >p.s.<br>

Being new to photo.net my first attempt to contribute to this forum appeared to be unsuccessful. I apologize if by some chance I repeat myself.</p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>"remember the time period mid to late 70s"<br>

I'm not talking about canon FD slr's in the context of the 1970's. I'm talking in the context of now. <br>

And I'm not saying the Canon FD cameras are no good, just that many models have drawbacks.<br>

Probably the best Canon FD model is the T90. And as much as I /want/ to like the F1 new, it's kinda a love-hate relationship. (its pretty much my main cam right now)</p>

<p> </p>

[tomscott]

<blockquote>

<p>Most have slow flash sinc speeds, and slow top shutter speeds compared to competitors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This statement must be where the confusion comes in. It's hardly fair to call a camera made twenty or more years later a "competitor".</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The only bad FD bodies are the ones I don't have... :)</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>We stocked every Canon SLR except for the F series. Just no market for such a professional camera in a small town. Probably the worst, though, IMHO, would be the T60 since it wasn't actually made be Canon. Our Canon representative wasn't very enthusiastic about it, even though he was supposed to promote it.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Do you like cheese? What's your least favorite kind? :)</p>

<p>Price alone will tell you which bodies to avoid. There are good reasons the T-60 and AV-1 sell for less than the T-90 and AE-1. Features. Reliability. Only the buyer can decide what his must-have list of features consists of. All of them use film and accept FD-mount lenses. That's a great starting point. In many situations the EXACT same photo can be taken with ANY FD body. Probably most situations.</p>

<p>If you want to use FD lenses and film, and those are your top priorities, buy the cheapest working FD body you can find. You will then have the opportunity to take great pictures. Notice I said opportunity, not ability. Ability comes with practice. :)</p>

[robert_broadhead]

<p>Wow great discussion. I haven't found an FD I don't like. My least favorite is the T-70. When I want simplicity and it's a nice day out the T-50 works great. I love love love my T-80. It takes great pictures. Only problem is no user control so basicly it an Auto-focus T-50. I have had my AE-1 since 1984 and have had it serviced once in 25 years, still taking great pictures. I think the most important thing is to get good glass. Find the FD that has the features you want, then get good glass to compliment it. Canon glass is of course the optimal choice, but Sigma, Tokina and Tamaron make good lenses as well. In the name of cheapness I bought some off brand glass and have regretted it and won't make that mistake again. The good glass is worth the extra $$$$. Any way get a FD in good shape and have fun!!!</p>

[rdm]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4142322">Jay McClure</a> , Jun 08, 2009; 01:28 a.m.<br>

I despised the T series as a whole.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How can you say that about the T-90?<br>

And even tho it lacks alot of controle how can you despise the very innovative T-80?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>T-60. Not a bad body - Cosina built its current minor empire on that very same chassis, including their first generation Bessa L. But the Canon T-60 was prone to a wonky film door, a vulnerability that was later fixed for the Nikon, Olympus, Vivitar and others built on the same body.</p>

<p>I saw quite a few Canons I wouldn't want, but they weren't bad, just not to my taste. I was never a fan of the AE-1, but it evidently wasn't a bad camera if sales and popularity are a reliable indicator.</p>

<p>TX, maybe not as desirable. It was the only all-manual Canon I had to take to a shop for repairs. The bushing in the rewind shaft had jammed tight. Normally I wouldn't have bothered but it was actually the office camera for the gummint agency I worked for, so repair costs didn't come directly out of my pocket, other than through my share of the taxes. It was the last SLR in our equipment closet and I wanted to continue using it because we had a good Canon FD telephoto that I often used to document our inspections. The rest of the inspectors had already switched to Olympus P&S's, with no reach for long distance photos.</p>

[thomas_barnes1]

<p>I've had four Canon slrs over the years, AE-1, A-1, AL and EF.<br>

Starting with the AE-1. Very pleased with it's performance but after 10 years, I started to have shutter problems. Had a lot of great features but it was done. Jumped the fence to a Nikon N55 and was EXTREMELY satisfied with the shots I got. Then something happened to that shutter and I went for an Canon EF. Solid as a rock, faster flash sync and don't notice the weight issue as some do. Have briefly had the A-1 and AL . The A-1 had too much and the AL viewfinder was very bright but it seemed to be constructed with a lot of plastic. Now I have two EF bodies and a bunch of great FD lenses: 21mm, 28mm, 50mm 1.4 FL, 70-210 zoom(my favorite) and a 300mm. I'm sticking to 35mm(and 120 for my ETRS) until the end...just can't afford the digitals! Great discussion!</p>