A question about the make up of my kit

[awahlster]

<p>Jeff you made my morning I can't stop giggling..</p>

[james_turner6]

<p>Of the two, I would probably keep the A1 (as lovely as the EF is), but what's the point? If you just want to keep them as tools, the F1N and T90 will surely do all you want. MLU is nice to have, I guess (I have yet to make use of it but am convinced that one day I will), but so much is nice to have that if you have it all you end up with too much - which is kind of where you came in in the first place.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<blockquote>

<p>Since I have all the viewfinders and screens I could ever want for the New F1 I don't see how adding that ability in a body with MLU would be something I need much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if you're not going to be doing any high magnification or long telephoto work, then you won't need a camera with MLU. But the F-1N, with all its focusing screens, doesn't have MLU as you know. And I recall reading an article in <em>Modern Photography</em> way back when, where they were asking the question, does it make a difference? Especially when Canon was claiming that the additional damping of the New F-1 made it unnecessary? Their test involved mounting both cameras with long lenses on a tripod and setting each camera's shutter speed to 1/60. The test showed definitively that the old F-1 with the mirror up took noticeably sharper photos than the New F-1 did.</p>

<p>Shortly after reading that article, which was written in about 1983 or 84, I bought my first MLU camera: a Canon FTb. I have owned an MLU camera ever since.</p>

 

[awahlster]

<p>Yes Sure Michael but if you know how to shoot with long lenses its not going to matter. And I don't know if you have ever tried to photograph a bird with a 20X lens but I can tell you there is NO WAY on earth to do it with MLU unless the bird is stuffed and mounted. At the magnifications required for Bird photography a bird the size of a crow will fill the frame. In the time you could set the MLU (which would move the camera) the bird would have changed expression activity or position all of which would screw your shot.<br>

You have to use the lens and camera as if it were a rifle and hold it on the target. It's refered to as "long lens technic" And I normally wouldn't think of trying to get a photo with a 400mm+ lens with less then 1/250th of a sec. And I use a Massive Berlebach Wooden tripod and a Large Heavy ball head.</p>

<p>And everything I have ever read about MLU showed it only made a difference in a very narrow range of shutter speeds around 1/8th to 1/30th of a sec.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

I used to have a pretty good collection of FD gear, but in the end I reduced my Canon SLR kit to one body and one

lens. The body is an F1n, and the lens is a 35/2 SSC concave. I like the solid construction of the old F1, and the 35/2

concave ay be one of the best 35mm lenses ever made by anyone. As a backup, I have a black-paint QL17 GIII.

[dennis_kushner2]

<p>I also reduced my FD users to a F1N body & 55/1.2 ASPH & 85/1.2L. I use the FN winder usually without batteries as I shoot mostly portrait mode & can fire the shutter without batteries installed. If I didn't own those 2 lenses, I would have abandoned FD 5 years ago. The only other FD lens I use is a FD 17/4 modified to 42mm SM or EOS mount on my Oly E-330 & Pentax K10D. Haven't bought an EOS digital because of the hit & miss of focusing manual lenses. Same with not getting on the Micro 4/3rds bandwagon for FD lenses. 35/2 CN concave one of the best for B&W. Today FD lenses a bargain & if I didn't have Leica & Pentax camera systems, would still be using them for film. </p>

[barryreid]

I have just been through a similar process. I had a T70, T90, new F-1, EF and all of the A-series. I decided to keep only the T90 and

a couple of lenses for sentimental reasons as it was my 21st birthday present. What I would say is that if you want to revpurpose the

money thats sitting there it can be maximised. If your kit is in good shape, you describe it well, sell in large batches and mention that

you are breaking up a collection, you will get good prices on eBay. My FD sell off still has a bit to go but successfully funded my TS-E

24mm MkII.

[theo_bern]

<p>I totally agree with Barry : <strong>(The money thats sitting there it can be maximized).</strong><br>

Thank you all for helping me clarify the answers that I needed too, by reading carefully all of your answers to Mark, with whom I was sharing the same dillema. I had to breakdown my FD collection and I had to stragle my feelings for each and every piece that was going away. The following photo is just a reminder for all of us to remember what we were talking about in this post ...........</p><div></div>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Mark, I'm quite familiar with long lens technique. I used to freelance as a motorsports photographer and attended all the airshows I could fit into my schedule. Often I was using a 300/2.8 and had perfected my panning technique such that most shots were sharp. I also frequently used a Sigma 600mm f/8 and even used it handheld in very strong sunlight, but more often than not I used it with a monopod. In one respect, birds and race cars -- and airplanes, far as that goes -- have one thing in common. They don't stay still. So, yeah, a decent motor drive is a better option in those conditions than MLU. But I would often shoot long-distance scenics where I would often even use an eyepiece magnifier to confirm good focus, and in those situations, I'd use MLU. I also used it when I had a rather large telescope and would take photos of the moon. But to each his own.</p>

<p>Still if it were my decision and it came down to the EF or the A-1, I'd have to go with the EF.</p>