Choosing a DSLR, to use with Cannon FD lenses

[barry_hatfield]

<p>Hi! I'm a newbie here and just found this website today. I have been a film SLR fan for years. I bought a Cannon AE 1 in 1977 and have loved it ever since. I have a number of FD lenses like an 85mm 1.8 that takes fabulous portraits. I have not really used my camera for the past 20+ years. I am expanding my collection of lenses as now that I am retired I want take up my passion once again. I am a Cannon fan and want to say with the Cannon brand. I've briefly looked at a 6D and a 70D as potential DSLR to augment my AE-1 and A-1 cameras.<br>

I would love any comments about which body will work best with my FD lenses? I would like to know if anyone has any experience with these two models using FD lenses? What is the best adapter? In general I welcome any thoughts about moving from film to digital. Finally, where is the best place to buy film today?<br>

Thanks!</p>

[SCL]

<p>If you do a search you will find lots of info, some of which may be encouraging, some of which may be discouraging. In a nutshell, you can use your FD lenses on many of the the Canon digital bodies...but, you have to do so via an adapter which has the potential to degrade the images thru the introduction of a lens not up to Canon's high specifications, if you want to be able to focus to infinity. If you are happy without this feature, you can easily get even cheaper adapters. but your range of focus will be limited. Also you will not have all the exposure features available to you, such as shutter and program priority exposure, but you can have manual and aperture priority exposure.The other solution (which I use) is to use my FD lenses on a digital micro 4/3 body with an adapter....I get full image quality with no degradation, but there is a 50% crop factor, so for instance the image I get with a 50mm lens is similar to what I would have gotten with a 100mm lens on an FD body....also no shutter priority or program mode, only manual or aperture priority exposure.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Please search the archives/internet for more info on using FD lenses on EOS bodies. Canon once made an adapter for using FD teles on an EOS body. That's considered to be the only adapter that offers a good quality. Other adapters come in two flavors: The ones with glass (lenses): these will degrade image quality and the glassless ones which will let you lose infinity focus. None of these will offer you auto-anything so no autofocus, no auto aperture.<br /> Your best option is non Canon: MILC or EVIL. Sony offers a few full frame mirrorless bodies so you can use the FD lenses without having to think about the cropping factor. <br /> Or wait for the next Canon EOS M offering (M3? I always wanted to have an M3 ☺). And I still hope Canon or a 3rd party will make an adapter with auto aperture; I'll keep on dreaming.<br>

Aah - Steven beat me by a few minutes :-)</p>

[barry_hatfield]

<p>I realize that the lenses will be manual mode. I am still primarily interested in film. However there are times when a digital body would be nice. As I've said I have been away from photography for too many years and I am not sure what a 4/3 body is. I would appreciate it if you could expand on that a little more.<br>

Thank-you</p>

[barry_hatfield]

<p>At least with film. I have been completely happy with with the quality of the photos that I get with the FD lenses. I realize that there will not be any auto function. I'm okay with that. Jos, you state that only the Cannon adapter model offers good quality. I would appreciate it if you could expand on that a little.<br>

Thanks! </p>

[horace_t]

<p>I use http://www.freestylephoto.biz/ and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ to get film. Lots more places.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>see this link: <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_fd_eos_adapters.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_fd_eos_adapters.html</a><br>

If you search Bob's website you'll find some more info on adapters. </p>

 

[SCL]

<p>Quick abbreviated response. A couple of years ago camera manufacturers introduced a body known as micro 4/3 which uses a smaller sensor than was being used in many consumer based digital SLR bodies. The early advantage of this system was that not only were lenses being designed for this system allowing full automation (AF, etc), but the lens mount flange to sensor distance was much smaller than DSLRS, which meant with a proper adapter one could use almost any SLR/DSLR manufacturer's lenses on this body with infinity focus. For instance I routinely use my legacy Nikon, Canon FD, Leica ranagefinder, Minolta and Contax/Yashica lenses on my micro 4/3 body. In recent times several manufacturers improved on this and introduced digital bodies which allowed legacy lens use with less of a crop factor in the resulting picture. The other thing Jos mentioned, was that when Canon changed over to the EOS mount from the FD mount in the 1990s, they produced a small number of adapters so professionals who had large investments in FD lenses could use them, presumable on a transitional basis, on the new bodies....today these adapters, when they can be found, routinely go for $1000 or more.</p>

[kerry_grim]

I would say to get the DSLR, and maybe a kit lens and don't worry about the old lenses. A kit lens is reasonably cheap and you may like the autofocus.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>My recommendation for a digital body: the Sony A7. Same sensor size as 8-perf 35mm. A good FD adapter is not that expensive. A full review:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7</p>

<p>You are right to stay with the FD lenses. They are arguably superior to EF lenses (actually a lot of people say so and have been saying so for years).</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Maybe look into one of Sony's NEX or A7 series cameras with a Metabones adapter?

[Matt Laur]

<p>Ellis +1</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Ellis +2</p>

[vfg]

<p>Barry I can relate to your situation. Through the seventies and eighties I acquired a ton of quality Canon gear, including over a dozen of the best FD's. The Canon gear holds up well, I still have all of mine and it's in excellent shape. With that said, I did find Canon to be problematic when I finally decided to jump into digital, so I went Nikon all the way. It was an expensive endeavor, but it's been very satisfying and well worth it. I had become so accustomed to the image quality my trustworthy Canon's had provided for years, I couldn't accept less. At the same time I was pissed that Canon's digital move made my absolutely fine high end photographers kit obsolete. A twenty year investment, that today looks good in a glass case, not a travel bag. I went with Nikon for obvious reasons, they are the best at not leaving us old timers behind, and their image quality when handled properly isn't questionable. And I'm sorry folks, four thirds is cute and fun, but it just doesn't get it.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

1. The reason FD lenses are difficult to use in non-FD bodies is that the FD flange focal distance is smaller than most of

them. That means not only there is no margin to place an adapter, the margin is actually negative. THIS HAS NOTHING

TO DO WITH FILM VS DIGITAL..

 

2. Canon ditched the FD mount because they found it suboptimal to put electronics into it. Other brands went the

suboptimal way, or had more tolerating mounts to start from. The fact is that any EF lens works fully on any EF body,

while the same is not true for other brands.

 

3. Digital cameras started with sensors that were smaller than film. That meant that the sensor captured only the centre of

the image, hence the so called crop factor. Brands started selling lenses that don't give as big an image, but can be

cheaper and lighter. Canon called theirs EF-a and made ti só they can't mount on film bodies, or bodies with sensors the

size of film, which they couldn't fully cover anyway and might damage by hitting the mirror. Of course, EF-S bodies can

use 'old' EF just fine. Here again, other brands chose just to have you look at compatibility tables to know whether your

lens and body match or not.

 

4. Since the sensor in digital cameras can look continuously at the image, unlike film which would become exposed, it

became possible to create cameras that can preview the shot without a mirror. As such, their flange focal distance can be

much smaller, do for them it's possible to mount almost any old lens via an adapter. Here's your answer: if you want

something now, look for 'full frame milc', of which Sony has a few. Being full frame they'll use your lenses' image fully. But

notice that the lack of mirror means autofocus (which old lenses don't have anyway) is not as good as on an SLR.

 

Read up a bit on these issues. Don't fall for hype! Don't rush to buy. Don't wait forever for the next big thing

[barry_hatfield]

<p>Horace, Thanks for the tip. Now I need to learn and test all the new films to find what I like. I used to buy the Kodak pro film Vericolor for prints.<br>

Jos & Stephen, I read that review with great interest. That really explained the problem and I will stop looking for the Cannon brand adapter as it is really designed for the big telephotos. I really do not need anything beyond a 300mm. (At least for now) The question is now, what is the best adapter since he reviewed an adapter that is no longer available. What I like most about the article is it explained the additional distance to the focal plane with the EOS camera. I am sure the various adapters add more distance to it as well. I certainly missed a lot of changes over the past 20 years.<br>

Kerry, I would probably by a kit. The problem with auto everything seems to be that people take a high volume of pictures in hopes of getting a good one. I like to spend the time composing a shot. With my FD lenses I have some experience with them and have a good idea what to expect from them. Granted, with digital you have instant gratification of being able to look at the picture. I have an Elph 600D that I use for quick snapshots and it fits in my pocket. It just seems to me that their is less artistry in digital. Half the fun is the composition, choosing the right lens, filter, lighting and paying close attention to where the sun is in outdoor photos. (As you can tell I don't shoot many action shots.) Truthfully, the only reason for me to go digital is if I can continue to use all the fabulous glass that I bought back in the 70's & 80's. If I buy a lit it will have to able fully utilize my FD lenses and from what I am learning Cannon has really dropped the ball with maintaining continuity with the legacy lenses. <br>

Karim, I will check out the Sony today. I wasn't aware of what others were saying about the FD lenses. I know that I bought Cannon initially because of the quality of the lenses and I have never been disappointed. </p>

[barry_hatfield]

<p>Ellis, Matt & Louis thanks, I plan to check out the Sony today.<br>

Vaughan, I am right there with you. I don't know that I change horses in mid stream as you have. It was a difficult choice back in 1978 between Nikon and Cannon. I will have to take a close look at the cost. I am retired now and I am not sure that I would be able to recoup the investment (in pleasure) to make that leap.<br>

Antonio, I went to a local camera shop that I have been doing business with for 35 years and took a close look at 6D and 70D. With what I have learned from everyone here that may not be the best option for me. This really is a more complex problem than finding something that is "plug and play".<br>

I do plan on keeping and using my FD lenses. The ultimate question is do I add a digital body to my collection and if so which one. It appears that Sony has the best option for me at this time.<br>

I want to thank everyone for their comments. This is the best website that I have ever joined and I plan on becoming an active member. I have learned an enormous amount from each comment and I see I have a lot more to learn. I want to thank everyone for their help and insight and welcome any additional thoughts that anyone has to offer. </p>

[ant_nio_marques]

Reread closely what I wrote. There is nothing there about the 6d or the 70d!

If you want something at this precise moment, you ought to go with a full frame milc with EVF. Nothing less that that will

be satisfying. If you go with less than that, you can even have a Canon EOS-M.

Canon supports FD lenses nor more nor less than any other brand - you gain nothing by using a Canon with FD lenses,

nor do you lose anything. But at the moment Sony is the one providing full frame milcs with an EVF. If tou dont gp Sony, ir

doesnt matter much what you go with.

It's not a matter of Canon having dropped the ball. FD is purely mechanical and they just had to evolve. It was in 1987, 17

years ago. If you wanted to keep on using FD, there are film Canons for that. They're old, but FD lenses cannot make use

of new features anyway. There's no FD digital body because 1) it would be very limited in what it could do, and 2) one

can always use a milc.

They could haver made EF with a smaller register than FD, so that a non-optical adapter was possible, only they couldn't

have, because they do need the 44mm. If anything, they could have made FD with a longer register back in the 60s, but

then they couldn't have used lenses from other brands...

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>@Vaughan: Canon's move to digital has nothing to do with digital, they changed the mount approximately 15 years before DSLR's were introduced. Some 35 years back I chose Canon and while I don't know all ins and outs of Nikon lenses I have seen enough posts on photo.net to be sure that Nikon has issues with lens compatibility as well.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Look at Bill C's series on FD lenses on his NEX-7<br>

His most recent at http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00ctzS?unified_p=1<br>

I haven't seen better images from FD on something other than the FD-mount cameras.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Ellis +3.</p>

[barry_hatfield]

<p>I want to thank everyone for their responses. I have had a very good education from everyone. I am looking into the Sony but I haven't had sufficient time to make a decision.</p>