Changing system from Canon FD to????

[brian_bryce1]

My real questions are two. One what would a gain/loose by switching to

a modern system, and does it make sence to do so? Two what system and

what parts?

 

My current "system" is an A-1, 50mm 1.8, 35-70mm 3.5-4.5, 28mm 2.8,. I

can't really say that there has been anything wrong with old equipment

as I like to set most everything manually anyway. I shoot mostly

slides of landscapes and other outdoor stuff. I find that I use my

28mm the most and my zoom second (I never carry more than two of the

three lenses, although I ocationally use my father's 115mm).

 

What I see myself gaining by moveing to a newer system is mostly the

lose of weight and perhaps some better mettering (oh yes and some lens

in a system that can be used later with a dslr). What I fear loosing

is affordable quality lenses. I simply do not know how a current 50

1.8 from canon lets say would fair against my FD. If I were to get

some new equipment I think I would get a Elan 7 or Rebel Ti, with a 50

1.8 at first then maybe later get a 28-105 3.5-4.5.

 

Still if there is anyone who has made such a swtich I would like to

hear your thoughts on the matter.

[al_kaplan1]

Your post brings to mind the old adage:

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

There's a ton of quality lenses out there at bargain prices as the herd mindlessly chases auto-focus and digital. Enjoy! Take pictures! Spend your money on film. Everything you spend on digital will be money thrown at soon to be obsolete stuff, and worthless. You'll be like a dog chasing his tail. Concentrate on the photograph. That's what it's all about.

[jim schwaiger]

I think the biggest difference you would see is that new AF lenses usually have a much shorter throw. Focusing an AF lens manually feels a lot different. If you want the best of both worlds, I think some of the Nikon bodies (N80 and F5, I beleive) allow the use of inexpensive and older MF lenses. Canon has changed mounts, so I don't believe that the AF bodies and MF lenses work together.

 

If you want to let the camera focus for you then any of the "Big 4" should perform very well. The 50mm lenses are incredibly sharp (and cheap) and I am very pleased with the 28-105mm AF-D Nikkor lens as well and rarely find a subject that is outside it's range.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Just commenting on Jim's Nikon comments: I agree that Nikon has good flexibility between MF and AF worlds (I have a large amount of both) but the N80 is not one of the stars; the N80 won't meter with MF lenses though it will mount them. A used N90 or N90s would be a better choice for mixed MF/AF shooting. F100 is great also, but pricy.

[GerrySiegel]

You pretty well added up the pros and cons yourself. If you shoot landscapes and don't need autofocus, you probably do well enough with manual system. Many of us have stuck with that. When a digital SLR comes along that I fall in love with I will have a choice. Until then, I like the idea of keeping the equipment budget low and leave space for fancy Swiss imported tripod heads:-). The A-1 is a fine performer. You can also consider an upgraded body (vis a vis metering patterns a la carte) by getting a used T90. On the other hand both Canon and Nikon have seduced a lot of people to upgrade. Elan 7 has good reviews and won't set you back too much. I am still waiting for the digi body and then the crunch will come. Until then, manana is good enough for me....

[sam_mahmoud]

Here are some random thoughts from someone who made the

switch and ended up with mixed feelings about it.

 

Possible reasons to switch:

1. You really want autofocus (that's why I switched).

2. You are not thrilled with center-weighted (wide-area)

metering and want a spotmeter or evaluative meter.

3. You want motorized film wind and rewind.

4. You're dying for tilt/shift lenses, image

stabilization, or some specific delicious lens

that is only offered in the new lineup.

5. Modern cameras are quieter.

6. You want an electrical switch type cable release

instead of a mechanical cable release, maybe so

you can fire the camera from a timer or motion sensor,

or maybe so you can fire the camera with a wire

from a long distance away.

 

Things that may sound like reasons to switch but aren't:

1. The optical quality of FD lenses lacks nothing.

EF lenses will not be a noticeable improvement,

at least in general (exceptions may exist).

2. Loss of weight may be a pipe dream -- modern

cameras save weight with plastic and maybe fewer

parts, but have more motors and include power

winders. Check those weight specs to be sure

you're really going to save significant weight

with the exact equipment combinations you are

switching from and switching to. The tempting

28-135 lens with IS, for example, is HEAVY!

3. Portrait/Landscape/Flower idiot modes: they are

not useful to someone who is used to setting

things manually.

4. Built in pop-up flash: they are very weak, if that

is the main thing you want, just get a small flash.

 

Reasons not to switch:

1. The user interface is COMPLETELY different.

2. You'll lose the split-image focusing aid in the

viewfinder.

3. AF lenses rarely have the silky-smooth feel when

manually focused that you've come to expect.

4. Most AF zoom lenses are variable-aperture. Compare

for example the autofocus 28-105 3.5-4.5 against the

manual focus 35-105 f/3.5.

5. Many AF zoom lenses are "varifocal." This means

that the focus changes as you zoom. No more focusing

at the long end of the zoom and then zooming out to

compose.

6. All long prime telephotos in the autofocus line

are "L" lenses and are correspondingly expensive.

The FD line had both L and non-L telephotos, right?

7. The 1.4x and 2x teleconverters are considered "L"

lenses and priced accordingly. They also have the

protruding front element that won't fit many lenses.

8. Most zoom lenses don't have depth-of-field scales,

and some primes that do have such a short focusing

movement that the DOF scale is not useful.

 

I'm sure these lists are far from complete, so I hope

others will add to them. Oh, and the 50/1.8 is optically

just fine and won't disappoint you as long as you are

looking at the photos and not at the lens itself, which

looks and feels like a cheesy plastic toy.

[gary w.]

More random thoughts...

 

I have an A1 as well as an Elan (original). I like both cameras, but find myself using the A1 more often.

 

One reason is because I like the FD lenses better. I can't tell the difference optically. They're cheaper. You can buy faster lenses at a much cheaper price. All the ones I own have the depth of field markings where the autofocus ones often don't. They're often built better (except perhaps for the L lenses which I've never owned), and they are easier to focus in low light (when autofocus doesn't work well). I can also prefocus by looking at the distance markings on the lens (my EF 50mm 1.8 has not markings at all). Did I say they're cheaper?

 

The meter on the A1 is rated better for low light than any EOS except perhaps the pro bodies.

 

I can tell immediately what I have my film rated at without having to move the command dial (for some reason that bugs me...)

 

I can use infra-red film with no worries with the A1.

 

The thing I do like on my Elan:

The thumb wheel. And the top wheel is easier to use as well.

The Elan is a little lighter with a 50mm lens attached (1.8 on the elan, 1.4 on the A1). Especially if you put the winder on the A1. - but not really smaller.

Exposure compensation is MUCH easier to use on the Elan (thumb wheel) - although I've turned it without knowing more than once.

The pop-up flash does come in handy once in a while.

Loading film is much easier and faster (no fiddling) - especially when its dark.

Its got a mirror lock-up ....well prefire anyway, not that I've noticed that it effects the picture any.

The infra-red remote is fun to use sometimes.

 

When I am out hiking or travelling light I take the Elan, when am out only taking pictures I take my A1.

 

Outside the lenses, If you have an A1, I can see you being happy with the Elan 7 - but I wouldn't think you can replace it with the Rebel.

 

Hope my ramblings help!

[brian_bryce1]

Thank you everyone. Sam excellent points. Looking at the spec you are correct the motor add much of the weight back. Looks like I will probably stay with my current gear. Saves money on batteries if nothing else...

[mikem1]

Another point about weight: the battery in the A-1 doesn't weigh much, but the cameras with AF and winders probably use larger heavier batteries. Make sure you are including battery weight if you are looking at weights.

[david godfrey]

Other than AF, quietness (to a degree) and the thought of a particular lens only avaliable in AF, all the plus points mentioned by Sam get sorted by getting a T90. Motors and AF are all noisier than the A1, and if you want mirror lock-up to minimise sound look at the EF- a really lovely under-rated camera. As others point out AF is unlikely to help you with landscapes. And if you want to do stuff with digital why not buy a neg scanner?

 

I should point out I'm an FD user with no intention of switching- despite what my colleagues say.

[alan_swartz]

Ditto to just about everything above.

 

I too am a dedicated FD user, though I've thought about a jump to EOS. For me, there's too much plastic and great lenses are too expensive. I'd never own an EF L-series lens.

 

I began with A-1's, I still have them both, and I still love them. Someone mentioned above about electrical releases--if you want to take picures by wire, get an inexpensive Power Winder A2 and build all the cables and switches you want. It takes a submini phone plug from Radio Shack!

 

I mostly use T90's now, and will echo Gerry Siegel's thought that it's a great item. I use the averaging/partial/spot metering a good deal. But beyond that, it really doesn't do a lot of things that can't be done with an A-1 and a Motor Drive MA.

 

With what you save by not going to EOS, you can buy yourself an L lens or two, and really make those landscapes snap.

[kevinconnery]

You won't inherently save weight; while my my Elan 7 weighs less than my T90 or F1, the lenses tend to be heavier for the same quality (that is, the older FD lenses, by-and-large, were comparable to the current 'pro' lenses, rather than the 'consumer' lenses.) so the combinations are pretty much the same weight.

 

Autofocus is the ONLY reason I switched; after one corneal transplant, and the probability of needing another, I just got tired of having crisp focus not where I thought it was. Now I get more in-focus shots.

 

Metering is variable. The T90's spot metering is better than what's in my Elan, comparable to the EOS 3, and worse than the 1V (and a LOT better than what's in my D60!).

 

No matter what, if you're still contemplating such a change, try all the major lines, and see how they fit your hand and style. The ergonomics are much more critical with the myriad advanced functions--whether you use them or not, their mere presence affects the other controls--and if the camera's not comfortable, the Pavlovian dislike will spill over into your photography.

[alex_ryan]

Stick with the a-1 unless prepared to spend a huge amount of money- cameras are not made the same as they used to be, you must buy the "professional" grade cameras now to equte the quality of older cameras that were sold to the public. I use an a-1 that was my dad's, and it takes better pictures than anything that I have seen that does not cost 1000+. Personally, I would only switch if I had the money to buy an EOS-1d Mk.II (8.4 megapixel canon digital), but with lens these run as much as $4000, not within my tiny budget.