Too much Canon FD stuff???

[george_mazzetti1]

<p>Do you think this is too much FD film stuff? I use all of the FD lenses on my Panasonic G3. They are the 24 2.8 ssc, 20 2.8 ssc, 135 3.5 ssc and the 50mm 1.8 new. Canon AE-1 program and T90 with a 50 3.5 macro on the way. Canon 300TL flash too. I really became tired of looking through those digital EVF squinty small finders with their extreme depth of field. Too hard to compose the shot, for me, that is. I use the T90 with the 2 wides most of the time. By conserving shots it makes it worthwhile cost wise. I may shoot 1 24exp roll of XP2 in a month. I have the film developed only at Cardinal camera and scanned to a disk by Costco. I have my own scanner if I feel like doing myself. I print them 8X10 or 5X7. What do you think of my workflow?</p>

<p>gmazz</p><div></div>

[george_mazzetti1]

<p>Sample pic.<br>

gmazz</p><div></div>

[george_mazzetti1]

<p>Another T90 XP2 shot.<br>

gmazz</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>Nah - if you use the FD stuff great!. I sold off some of mine last year, but still have 7-8 FD lenses, and yes, I still use them on my T90 (outstanding combo of body/lenses), as well as my Oly E-p2. Glad to see some good FD shots...those lenses and XP2 just seem made for each other.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>bo I was given more ds stuff<br>

and only wish there was a digital body<br>

( I know dream on)<br>

since I have rolls of B&W film I can use them.<br>

I cannot build a bannister with the lenses but almost.<br>

as long as we can get film use them.</p>

 

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I'm Nikon shooter from the '70s but drift in and out with Canon FD stuff. My present stable of Canon FD is Old F-1 (the all mechanical version) from mid 70's with 24mmf2.8, 28mm f2.8, (2)50mm f1.4, 135mm f3.5 all breech mount.<br>

I also have rare MDU(motor drive unit) with handle under camera and 15 cell battery pack slung over shoulder plus built-in intervalometer!!<br>

My Canon converter B allows use of these lenses on my Leica II and M3 with infinity available and focus is by hyperfocal distance lacking the rangefinder lens cams.<br>

If I go Sony Nex down the road, I'll use these lenses at 1.5 crop...........</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>I still have 5 film cameras and 12 AIS/AI Nikkor primes. I still shoot a lot of film and I use all the primes on my D700 so they still have a high degree of usefulness.</p>

<p>Personally I think Canon really kind of screwed their film users when they introduced digital. Whereas ANY AIS/AI Nkkor can still be used on a Nikon digital (with some loss of automation, if you use things like that) but Canon's excellent FD lenses are useless without an adapter.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>To answer the original question, no. I don't consider the above to be too much FD gear. Of the five lenses you mention, the only one that has managed to maintain a significant percentage of its original value is the 20mm f/2.8. Some errors in your listings, though. The 20mm in the photo is a New FD 20mm f/2.8, so it shouldn't say "SSC" on the front bezel the way it does for your 24mm. The 135mm f/3.5 FD breechlock lens shown is an SC, not an SSC. Canon didn't make a 135mm f/3.5 SSC lens. It's still a great 135/3.5, though -- massively overbuilt. And it also looks like you have an FD to EOS converter on the base of your 50mm f/1.8 lens. Yes?</p>

<p>I've been in and out of Canon FD over the past 30 years. Right now I've got a pretty decent selection in the 17mm to 200mm range. Used to own the 400mm f/4.5 FD IF, but it got stolen. ;< I also own a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LD IF, though, so I've got that focal length and aperture covered with the Tamron dedicated 1.4x. Far as that goes, I have a decent selection of Tamron zooms and primes, most of which are their SP line, so I can use these on whichever camera I want, including my DSLR.</p>

<p>I drifted into Nikon about 20 years ago and have maintained a small Nikon outfit over the years. I have decent coverage in the 24mm to 300mm range. I also own some other miscellaneous SLRs, rangefinders, and lenses -- 35mm and medium format. Most all of which is technically "obsolete," but so what! It all still takes great photos, photos that'll rival digital when a bit of technique and polish is included.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I don't think so - I still have 8 bodies and around 40 lenses!

[thomas_goehler]

<p>Ha, only 8 bodies? I got ten! ;-)<br>

And I don't regret it and try to use them as often as I can.</p>

[thomas_goehler]

<p>Ha, only 8 bodies? I got ten! ;-)<br>

And I don't regret it and try to use them as often as I can.</p>

[rwbowman]

<p>There's never too much....</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>FD bodies? I have ten also. Total number of bodies? Nineteen or twenty. And there's always room -- and a need -- for one more. :)</p>

 

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>Well, I feel better -- I have stopped collecting bodies for now, which are all Canons. I am currently watching a very nice clean FTB ql however but I have no experience with a match-needle camera and not sure I would go back "that far" with technology. My collection is nothing too uncommon, 2 A-1s, 2 AE-1 Programs (like the interchangeable screen feature), 3 T-70s and the T-90, which seems to be a tank disguised as a camera. I have 10 lenses as well, and they get used as much as possible. I am hoping to find a nice clean FD 100 Macro, new mount would be ok. I find collecting -- and using my equipment is very therapeutic.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>Robb, I can't believe it. You gotta try a match-needle Canon. The FTb is a great example. As is the original F-1. Match needle metering is probably the easiest, yet most informative way there is for you to establish the correct exposure value for a scene. With Canons, the "lollipop" needle is connected physically to the lens aperture mechanism. The needle for shutter speeds is controlled by the shutter speed dial once the meter has been switched on. You just bring the two needles together, such that the shutter speed needle bisect's the aperture's lollipop, and you have correct exposure. The biggest difference between the old F-1 and FTb is the FTb's needles are located on the side of the viewscreen whereas the F-1's move up in down in a separate rectangular window next to the viewscreen. But they both do the same thing.</p>

<p>It was the movement away from the automation of the A-series Canons and toward initially the FTb -- in my case the FTbn -- and then finally to the Canon F-1, that put me on the path toward learning both the art and craft of photography. By eschewing automation, I had to think about exposure and how the interplay between shutter speeds and aperture affected the scene. Before, I was like so many others: I'd point, focus, and shoot, then move on. I grew to love and treasure my FTbs and F-1s for the simple, robust tools they are. Tools that have all the technology one needs to take a perfect photograph.</p>

<p>So, take the plunge, I say. Pick up that FTb, mount a nice lens, and play around with it. If there's an ounce of the techie in you at all, I'll wager right now that you'll grow to like it.</p>

 

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>Well, I'm not totally inexperienced with match needle technology. The first 35mm SLR I had was a very obscure Hanimex Pentameter (probably not the exact name) with light meter inside the prism atop the lens. It was battery powered and was all but impossible to replace. I did amazing concert photos with this little bugger but it was not an easy camera to use. By the time I discovered the meter / battery issue (and learned the reason this camera was "affordable") the Canon A-1 had premiered. But something keeps telling me for the total "Canon" exerience, I should go back a full 40 years and try some bona fide match needle tech. Questions: I'm thinking foam inside would be an issue due to age, but no Canon squeal I hope. I already have 2 bodies that need a re-furb. What batteries would I use? I'm thinking a camera store that sells new and vintage cameras would be the best source. Also what is the major difference if any betweem a Canon FTb and a Canon FTBn. The original was released in 71, the later model 2 years later. That's all I know. I'm thinking just an update tweek ? And about how heavy are these buggers ? I have enough age appropriate lenses I would enjoy on this body if I really get serious. I think this body takes both FD and FL lenses. Michael, you've really got me interested now. Silver and black bodies are probably the most common. </p>

[thomas_goehler]

<p>I guess your questions refer to the FTb, right?<br>

First of all, the foam seals can be replaced easily by yourself. Second, the Canon squeal is original to A-1 and AE-1program bodies, NO OTHER canon body suffers from that!<br>

FTBn differs from its predecessor only in that way that the chosen shutter speed is shown in the viewfinder.<br>

And yes, FTb is quite heavy!</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>Thomas: thank you for your response. I can do heavy, I'm used to the A-1 and T-90. I use an Optech strap which helps. FTb camera bodies in good clean condition are getting harder to find. FTBn bodies are harder I believe. The foam seals I can do, my dad was a watch repair man so I hope some of his talent and patience have rubbed off and glad there is no inheritant squeal. I'm feeling positive about this and will continue my search. Did see some minty F-1s, new and old and they were like museum pieces.... wow I'm going to search for the FTB for right now though.</p>

[robbz_fotoz]

<p>@Michael and Thomas: Recently I purchased a rather minty FTBn with a chrome nosed 50mm 1.8 lens. I am kinda thrilled to have this new to me but vintage 40 year old camera in my collection and I know I'm in for a lot of learning. As it is, my local high school offers a night class program entitled "Classic Cameras 101" which should help. I'll get to mingle with classic camera afficionados such as myself and hopefully re-learn everything that automation since then has erased in my mind. First impression ... yes it IS a HEAVY camera. The camera has recently been cleaned, lubricated and adjusted. I'm ready to go - or as the recently spotted license plate said "F8 NBTHR" (F/8 and be there). Apparently the driver who was a retired journalist for the local paper adhered to this motto for his "next" photo.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>I'm not going to state how much FD gear I have, only that it's more than my wife wants me to have! ;-)<br>

Thomas, <strong>All</strong> A-series have the same mirror & shutter mechanism and are all equally prone to the 'A-series squeak" but <strong>Only</strong> A-series cameras can get it. <br>

<br />Robb, Match needle especially with an FTb or F-1 is the way to go! Either model F-1 but it's more fun with a PE screen if you have the New F-1. <br>

Heavy??? Try adding a Motor Drive MF and SL 533G flash, then you can call it heavy.</p>

[thomas_goehler]

<p>Mike, if they are ALL prone to the squeak, but only A-1 and AE-1program (not AE-1, that's a proven fact) get it, how do you account for that?</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>Thomas, where is your "proven fact" proof? <br>

I have an AE-1 than had it and recently got a Lake Placid AT-1 that has it, and there are documented items onilne with the other A-series models having the squeak, which is actually a mirror bearing lubrication problem not a shutter problem.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_goehler]

<p>I know it's a mirror bearing lubrication problem and I also know that in all my more than 10 years of talking to people in photographic forums there never has been reported a single AE-1 or AT-1 with this problem due to the fact that both A-1 and AE-1program have a different set-up which is hardly surprising as they are more advanced cameras than AE-1 and AT-1 which are basically the same models (the At-1 being more or less and AE-1 without the aperture program).<br>

Could you send me a link to these documents that you mentioned?<br>

I didn't know there was a Lake Placid AT-1, I only knew of a Lake Placid F-1.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>Thomas, when i get home in the fall, I'll have the AE-1 and AT-1 looked at. I'm not taking them apart by myself. I go back about 30 years with Canon equipment and have seen most of the good, bad and ugly.</p>

<p>While Canon didn't make marked A-series commemoratives like they did with the F-1, they did package and sell the AE-1 and AT-1 in special Lake Placid Olympic boxes (along with the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 lenses). I have a matching boxed set Lake Placid AT-1. I missed out on a similar AE-1 set. (still looking) There's the outer box and the camera box and lens box.</p>

<p>Similarly for the 1984 Los Angeles games there were A-1 and AE-1 Program sets. Both of which I have. The A-1 set has a 50/1,4. all the rest same came with 50/1.8s. A few of these have the original warranty cards with them.</p>

<p>I have not seen LP A-1 or LA AE-1 box sets but it is conceivable that they exist.</p>

<p>You can also verify by the camera dates. Summer 79 to Feb-Mar 80 are valid dates for LP while Oct 83 thru Jul 84 are valid dates for LA.</p>

<p>F-1s are or course easy to recognize, but you still need to look at the serial number AND date codes, because the F-1 Top plate is in 2 sections. I have seen fakes. Los Angeles are much to verify with all the gold lettering. Beware of an LA F-1 with a white lettering finder!!! I have all the F-1s (8 in total) and LA & LP boxes, but the one Montreal boxed F-1 i ever came across went too high for my tastes back then, although I now wish I had bought it.</p>

 

[thomas_goehler]

<p>Probably the boxed Lake Placid A-Series models never made it to Europe, because I never saw nor heard about those back here. I DO have some lenses with special caps for the various sporting events such als Olympics or Soccer World Cup, though.</p>