Canon FTb review

[garethspics]

<p>Ken Rockwell has reviewed the Canon FTb. Ken's sometimes a bit controversial but he tells it like it is.<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/ftb.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/ftb.htm</a></p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Ken's controversial? Just kidding. He's one of those guys like me. He's a crazy sort of guy that says what's on his mind and lets the chips fall where they may. People either love him, or hate him, which is pretty much my style, if that's the right word. Like what he says or not, I find that refreshing these days when everyone is so concerned that they might say something to alert the PC police.</p>

<p>I have a FT QL, which is similar, but a little lesser, than the FTB. It is a rock solid camera that has a build quality far above any Canon SLR I've ever owned. I love it. Just bought a FL 135 2.5 lens for it last night in fact from KEH for the princely sum of $43, including shipping. My only gripe is w/ the focusing screen. As neat as it is, my old eyes would much prefer a split prism for focusing, but I can still focus it OK. Oh, and there's NO eye relief. If Nikon can call their camera a High Point, this one would be a Low Point. I have to take my glasses to have any hope of seeing the whole frame, and even then it's tough. Thanks for the link. I haven't visited Ken's site in a while. I'm off to read his review (or rant) now.</p>

[mlynch]

<p>I have the FTbN. This camera has remained in our family since it came out of the box. It is a delight to use. Canon FD glass is wonderful and relatively inexpensive considering the quality. I think Mr. Rockwell hit the nail on the head with his summary.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have accumulated one chrome FTb, three chrome FTbNs and one black FTbN. I used the black FTbN last month wile on vacation. It had color print film in it while an F-1 had EB. Plenty of cameras can stop down to shooting aperture with a depth of preview lever or button. This action is slightly different on a Minolta SRT 201 than on an SRT 101 but they both work. Metering with an FTb/FTbN is not better than on a Minolta SRT with CLC. It's just different. If you point the FTb's 12 degree meter at an area which is not a middle gray tone and don't make an adjustment, your exposure will still be wrong. If my count is right I have seven 135/2.5 FL lenses. It's one of my favorites. I often compare FTbs to mechanical Nikkormats. Both are good. If you need the higher flash synch speed, the Nikkormat is better. The mirror lock-up is easier to use on an FTb. At about the same time that Nikon offered the Nikkormat FTN 'K' Canon offered an FTbN with a split image screen. None of my FTbNs have the split image screen but I have a spare screen and I may have it installed in an original FTb. I might have done it sooner but changing screens in the F-1 models is easy. When it's in good condition, an FTb or FTbN is a smooth working and capable camera. Earlier this year I got a mint condition chrome FTbN with a Vivitar 55/2.8 Macro, also in mint condition, for a whopping $47. I have two MR-9 adapters but to try it I just put in a 675 Zinc-Air battery (with no O ring) and it worked perfectly. M one complaint about the FTb and FTbN cameras is that many are missing a thin piece of metal which covers the screws holding the flash shoe. The camera works without it but looks better with it. </p>

[james_turner6]

<p>He reviews the 50mm f1.2L as well - and is complimentary about it (as he should be). But he throws in this line:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no way to adapt this lens for use on EOS 35mm or digital cameras. ... Yes, there most likely are adapters to junk formats like micro 4/3 ... . Those don't count ... .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eh? <strong>Edit:</strong> Sorry, that's British English for "Say what?"</p>

[jim_bielecki1]

<p>A typical, poorly researched Ken Rockwell review. And what's this SMS (Shockless Mirror System) stuff he mentions? The FTb, like almost every other Japanese 35mm camera manufacturer in the 1960's, used nothing more than a simple foam strip to absorb mirror vibrations as the mirror moved out of the way. It sounds like all he did was to refer to the MIR site for background which, while having some good information, is also filled with a lot of errors. </p>

<p>And what's with the micro 4/3rds "junk format" comment?</p>

 

[phule]

<p>[[And what's with the micro 4/3rds "junk format" comment?]]</p>

<p>It's designed to make people say "what's with the micro 4/3rds 'junk format' comment?" and post an link thus driving eyeballs to his site. </p>

 

[bob_miller4]

<p>I started in SLR photography in the late 1970's using a Canon TX, basically a FTb lacking a few features (such as QL loading, semi-spot metering, meter on-off switch, 1/1000 sec speed, self timer). It's been great all these years and as rock solid as its big brother. The TX's focusing screen with microprism center is brighter than the FTb's screen.<br>

There is also the slightly earlier TLb which is a TX with a cold, not hot shoe for flash.<br>

I find the slightly smaller Pentax Spotmatics a bit easier to handle, but breechlock (FL, FD) or pseudo-breechlock (New FD) mounted lenses on a Canon are easier to change out than M42 threaded lenses on a Pentax. I see many comments on the Web about the perversity of the breechlock design, but I've found it easy to work with.</p>

 

[james_turner6]

<blockquote>

<p>[[And what's with the micro 4/3rds "junk format" comment?]]<br>

It's designed to make people say "what's with the micro 4/3rds 'junk format' comment?" and post an link thus driving eyeballs to his site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should've thought of that. <sigh> Trolled again. <\sigh></p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I bought my first FTb -- actually it was an FTbn, but I didn't know about the differences at the time -- back in about 1984. Prior to that I owned a couple of "auto" Canons -- an AE-1 and an A-1. I bougt the FTb because I wanted mirror lock up, but once I started using the camera, I fell in love with it, and my A-series cameras just sat on the shelf, collecting dust. With the FTb, I learned <em>photography</em> because it forced me to think about exposure and as I slowed down I also began spending more time on composition, which was also a good thing.</p>

<p>I have mixed feelings about Ken Rockwell. Perhaps it's as if an item hasn't existed until he "discovers" it that I find vaguely annoying. I can usually spot errors in his diatribes as well. And his review of the FTb is no exception. On balance, though, I agree with his take on the camera, but that's just simply because he's preaching to the choir as for as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>There are other reviews on the FTb and its features that are also worthwhile. If I may blow my own horn for a bit, I can point to my own book, which has been out of print for some years now, but which I just recently learned is now available as an ebook, titled <em>McBroom's Camera Bluebook,</em> where I discuss the FTb's features and even have a series of photos, showing both the 4-in-1 stop down/mirror lock up/self timer mechanism and the QL feature. Additionally, if you read the reviews of the FTb at eBay (one of which is mine, you get to guess which one), I think you'll find that they're quite informative as well. And not once does anybody nag you for money so they can keep their family in formula and diapers.</p>

<p>Rockwell made one glaring error when he mentioned that no other FD camera has a stop-down lever that works as well as the FTb's. Eh? -- er, say <em>what?</em> Its contemporaries, the F-1 and the EF have identical stop down levers to the one found on the FTbn, and the FT's is identical to the one found on the FTb. The New F-1's stop down lever works just fine, as do those found on the A-series Canons. I can't comment about the T-series Canons because I've never owned one, but I'll bet their arrangements work well too.</p>

<p>Rockwell did not spend enough time discussing the FTb's metering pattern. It is one of my most favorite aspects of the camera and I've found that, with just a bit of practice, one no longer needs to use anything else, even a spot meter for critical exposure accuracy, even when shooting with narrow latitude slide film. Metering occurs only within a rectangle located in the center of the viewfinder, which occupies about 12% of the finder area. Because of this strong selective area metering method, extraneous light sources can be entirely discounted as long as they're kept outside the rectangle while metering the scene. When I bought my first original F-1, I can't tell you how pleased I was to discover that it used the exact same metering method as the FTb.</p>

<p>He likes the smoothness of the shutter and compares it favorably with the New F-1s. Well the New F-1s may be smooth -- in fact, Canon claimed it was so smooth that that was why they did away with mirror lock up. Which was a mistake. <em>Modern Photography</em> magazine posted an article where they challenged Canon's claim and showed through comparison photos that the New F-1 actually suffered quite a bit from mirror-induced shake. Which is why, when I bought my first F-1, it was an old one. And speaking of the old F-1, in my opinion, its shutter is the finest of all the horizontal focal plane shutters that Canon made. And even though the camera had mirror lock up, I've always found the old F-1's shutter to be very smooth.</p>

<p>I suspect the reason why his FTb's film wind "jammed" at frame 35 is because he was out of film. QC in the film industry probably isn't what it used to be. And even if it wasn't the film, I don't see how he could blame the QL -- that's Quick LOAD feature. Eh?</p>

[alia_leo]

<p>hi friends, forum sites are best sites to look out for the solutions.<br />But I suggest you to go with an eperts so that u can get and best answer.<br />i can't help you now..thnks .<br />........................<br>

Top ten Classified website </p>

[steven_endo]

<p>You know, I never understood the criticism of the FL/FD breechlock mount being more difficult than a bayonet mount. I can see how the FL mount with its non-spring loaded, thinner ring might have been a little more involved to use than the FD breechlock but to me, the breechock mounts always seemed just as easy to use as others' bayonet mount. No lock buttons to fiddle with (which the new FD has :( )and no "indexing" was required like the early Nikon lenses. And with the FD mount, if you left the lens at f16 or higher, was especially easy to use since all you do is press the mount against the body and ring turned by itself enough to let you let go of the lens to cap the dismounted lens in your hand. Then it was just another 1/8th turn or so, and the lens was securely mounted to the body.</p>

[mark_boon1]

When buying my first SLR back in 1974, it was a toss-up between the Canon FTb QL and the Nikkormat FTn. Other than

Nikon being the pro's choice, I knew absolutely nothing about SLRs, but three simple things made me choose the FTb: Its

good looks, its Quick Load and its breechlock. Now, nearly 40 years later, I can safely say I made the right choice.

Despite heavy use in every condition imaginable (and I've had more conditions thrown at me than you can imagine), my

trusty FTb never let me down once, and I wouldn't dream of ever parting with her (not that anyone else would want her, all

beat up, dented and brassed). Fortunately for me, other people have less qualms about swapping their old analog amice

for a fresh digital daisy, so my old FTb is now enjoying the company of some better-preserved relatives: a first generation

FTbQL, three EFs, three F-1ns and a new-in-the-box F-1New LA. There's also a few Spotmatics, OM's and even a Nikon

F3 and two Nikkormats. Each one of these cameras is great in its own right, but as far as quality, ease of use and bang

for the buck goes, Canon created an absolute winner with their FTb QL. In other words, you're absolutely right, Mr.

Rockwell!

[paul_dulaney1]

<p>After 40 years of 35mm photography, I would say no slr I have ever used has been more reliable and had a more "quality" feel than the FTb. I've been using the same one my dad purchased new in the mid 70's and it works as good now as the day it was new. I actually prefer it over the original F-1 for casual photography due to the more visible meter needle, ease of battery checking, quick load, and the hot shoe. I used to prefer the split image focusing but the older I get, the more I like the microprism focusing screen. </p>

[thomas_goehler]

<p>seeing this thread reminded me of the fact that I used my black FT-B (N) this fall and had filled it with Kodak's flgship CN-fim, the Ektar 100 to cover some fall motives.<br>

Here they are! (I used FD 3,5/28mm, FD 2,8/100mm SSC)<br>

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8207/8252798728_8456f1a26e_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="541" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8205/8252799912_ca3f10cbe5_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="541" /></p>

[flavio_egoavil]

<p>Nice thread. I have a Canon A-1 and i have been considering to get a FTb for YEARS and YEARS. I agree with the favorable reviews, perhaps it is the best Canon manual focus SLR ever. </p>