Canon FD forum activity

[Rob_L1664876404]

Does anyone have any insight as to why activity on the Canon FD forum

has slowed down so drastically since the holidays? Is it just that

people are back to work and don't have time, or is there a trend of

lost interest in FD equipent?

[douglas_green1]

I think that activity in all of these diversions is down, what with the poor economy, the war in the Middle East, etc. I buy and sell alot of classic camera gear on *bay, and I've seen that the cost to buy an A-1 has plummeted over the past 6 months. I just got a near mint one WITH motor drive MA, also near mint, for $235. Before the Holidays, the Motor drive MA alone in that condition would pull close to $200. I'd say that A-1 bodies have dropped from an average price of $160-175, to more like $125-140 in that timeframe. Similarly, the average cost of a nice AE-1 with a 50mm f1.8 lens has dropped from $110-125 to around $100 in the same span. But it is NOT just Canon FD equipment that I've seen this in. It's ALL film cameras that I've been watching across the board.

 

It used to be, that a comptitively priced camera that I might list on the auction site would have 200-250 people view the listing in a week. Now, the same listing, even with the price adjusted to lower reality, is getting 80-100 people viewing it in a week. This is what is known as a recession.

[gregory_nicholson]

Roger that, when I started looking on ebay 10 months ago, usually a Photo-lenses-Canon-FD search would result in 400-600 listings. Often they will only have some 300 now. We've also seen some at-one-time very desirable FD stuff that closed without one bid. F-1's and F-1n's used to sell for $300-400 on a regular basis, now if there is ANY brassing they go for give-away prices.

 

Look at what a EOS 10D is capable of and you'll see why there is a resent decline in film camera interest. I talked to the local Police Photographer and he said digital images are now admissible as evidence if the memory cards are sealed and signed by two officers.

 

I seriously doubt film will, at one time, not be available. There are literally millions of film cameras in different formats around the world. For the casual photographer, like my Dad, buying a digital camera, back up memory for his computer, trying to figure all this out, or whatever else so Mom can email pictures of her garden is not an option. His T-50/Tamron 28-85 is just fine. I tried several times to get him to use one of my A-1's or F-1's with no luck. He doesn't even want to try any of my lenses, he's just stubborn like that. Some people will never go digital or auto focus for that matter. Plus the US mail is still a reliable way to get out those pictures to everyone.

 

None of this new technology is stopping me, I've recently made a few decent purchases and will continue until I have the FD lenses and accessories I want. Matter of fact I sent Keh a check today.

[think27]

I found Photonet many many years ago due to my Canon F1N. I put my F1n's away in my closet last year when I finally switched to EOS 1V. Took me 13 years to do it.. Eyesight and age is why I switched because I do love my manual cameras dearly. People I know who have also switched to newer technology are holding on the their F1's though... I think there

are not a lot of newcomers to this genre anymore and so many of us

have gone on which would explain the lack of interest in the FD forum.

[jerome b]

I kind of disagree with the thought that the relative lack of activity on this forum should necessarily be correlated with the slow down in activity for FD gear on the market. Even if trading has slowed down a bit in the recent month there are still hundreds of thousands out there still using that type of equipment.

 

One of the things that probably comes into play is the fact that a great deal of equipment/issues/questions have already been covered in previous posts on this forum. I would imagine that before posting someone would search if the question has already been raised before. And it's not like the subject is always changing either. The youngest piece in the Canon FD line is probably 20 years old now. Once everyone has said their opinion on, say, the 50mm f/1.4 vs 50mm f/1.2 comparison I don't know if we can do much but beat a dead horse again.

 

It's probably a (positive) sign that this forum has reached some kind of maturity and now constitutes in effect an excellent knowledge base for anyone interested in FD gear.

[david_goldfarb]

I think that's pretty reasonable. There's not much traffic on the classic Bronica forum either, probably because there are lots of good resources out there on the net and elsewhere, and there aren't too many new things to discover about these old systems.

[navarra]

I'm a newcomer to film photography!

 

I started with digital because it looked "easy": no film, no developing... then I wanted to try the "real" thing and got an used AE-1 (still under repairs for that light leak :)

 

Of course I'd like to own a DSLR, but it's too early. Modern lenses are too expensive as well. I just got a canon 50/1.4 SSC and a 28/2.8 from ebay for 120 euros. Why should I spend much more just to have auto-focus? As long as my eyes work (I'm 27) where's the big deal? And manual is funnier as well!

 

The only real problem with film against digital is the darkroom: I am pretty used to digital retouching (you can see my pictures of course) and I think the final result of a retouched Canon S40 (mid level compact digital) is much much better than a retouched print or slide, even scanned with my Epson 2450 photo wich should be quite good.

 

I like my images to have a polished, professional feel, and while film pictures might look so great you just can't "fix" them in photoshop. Of course you can have them scanned in a lab, but you got to pay for that. Digital lets you have your own darkroom with no further expense.

 

I think Canon FD was a great choice for me: I'll learn how to use an SRL, I'll know what to look for when I'll upgrade to a DSLR and probably I'll find out something about photography that my S40 couldn't show me. But I believe digital is the future, and not a distant one.

 

Simone

[GerrySiegel]

If I were just starting out w/SLR, I would well consider digital, but I can achieve what I need with T90, FD glass, and Frontier labs. I see often rationalizations ( a guy said he loves slides and can't get good processing- as good a reason as any to buy a digicam Another runs a soft porn web site that pays for his digital body and L lenses). A good photographer shoots carefully and doesnt blast away,maybe a good value to cultivate. I can wait for the one hour lab. Nevertheless,gotta admit,when technolust sets in, the price and technology are surprising. I can see myself drooling for a Canon 10D and an L zoom for $2500-down from the stratospheric two years ago. but I think Id rather spend it on a trip to Fairbanks. Now I do own Photoshop 7 and no matter what I do, that is going to be the area of learning and discovery. Finally, shopping has become-as Gigi's Gaston would have said "Its a bore!" PS. I bet there are people in India ferinstance still shooting with Minolta SRT's and Olympus OM's...they just don't yack as much on the internet about the good old mechanical stuff.

[douglas_green1]

There's people in California (Like ME) still shooting with Minolta SRTs, Olympus OMs, and Canon FTb-n's. If one does not care about the newest and trendiest systems, these are all extremely capable cameras, and GREAT to learn on.

 

Actually, in the Canon system, I still use an A-1 and a Bell & Howell FD35 (which is a re-badged Canon TX). I also use Nikons, Olympuses, Minoltas, and Pentaxes from the same generations. They are all highly capable instruments. And I can get GREAT prime lenses on ebay for most of these cameras for prices like $30-100 each.

[GerrySiegel]

Simone, one more thought, fix it in Photoshop or Elements or similar is is never quite as good as hitting the exposure right on in the viewfinder. Same for focus, depth of field, fill flash and so on. Not against the beauty,nay joy of easily cropping on a computer screen I hasten to add, nor downplaying the pleasure and patience of cropping in the finder. I guess I see the world simplistically as divided into1) bourbon and gin drinkers,1) artists of composition and 2) artists of technical manipulation, one from Venus one from Mars sort of. A marriage of a different set of skills and room for both..I am as bored with computer juggling as I was in souping prints,etc. Restoration of old stuff is a whole different story,of course. If you get my point and I KNOW you do.... Hurrah to the OM users, isnt that a honey of a system, sorely lamented to those that think petite translates as sweet...:-) Aloha, GS who just tried and returned a digital Elph. NIce but....

[14mm 2.8l]

Whoa now! "20 years..." I saw a 85mm f1.2L that had a build code UI which translates to May 1994. Its the youngest FD lense I have seen. F-1N was made thru April 1992. My still absolutely new in the box F-1N has a 1996 inventory date on the original price sticker. It was bought new 7 years ago now. And at a hefty premium over earlier retail. Kinda like Nikon is doing now with their F3HP bodies still in inventory. My crystal ball tells me its the exodous to digital cameras and camcorders that's affecting the FD market. Canon made lots of FD equiptment whose supply seems to be exceeding demand these days. So its a fine time to buy and not so good to sell.

[timothy_scriven1]

I agree that this forum has "matured" into more a knowledge base than a discussion area. I have found answers to almost all questions I have had on here, regarding FD.

 

I specifically chose Canon FD after a trip to the UK, where I used my travel partner's EF-1... I fell in love with it instantly, and bought myself a near-perfect AE-1 Program upon return to Australia (for a bargain basement price too - about $US 90 at the time!)

 

It's a pain in the butt to find peripherals for it, but that's half the fun - finding gear in good nick that allows me to take great photos, and then learning how to get the most out of them is more of a challenge than composing and shooting photos for me.

 

I recently picked up a Sigma 75-210mm zoom lens from ebay - the sliding parts are a bit loose and it's a real challenge to hold it steady at the angles I like to shoot at, but I nailed a long-distance shot during the week with it, and I'm satisfied. So much more fun than digital or even auto-focus work, in my humble opinion.

 

There is no way I will replace my AE-1P while it still works. I may even try and get an older body that is less reliant on electrics.

[jerome b]

Well, I think you guys just proved the point: there still seems to be some activity and interest on certain subjects in this forum�

<br><br>

Ok, sorry, 10 years since the last FD equipment saw the light (I think I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote 20.) that doesn't change the argument a whole lot.

<br><br>

And in any case, denying the fact that digital is taking on film photo would be foolish. That doesn't mean that all FD users (and I do believe the majority of them aren't in India) are dropping their gear in the blink of an eye to jump onto digital. I also think there are plenty of young folks like Simone (I'm still in my twenties myself) who will come to film photo and will choose the FD system because of its popularity. You still have to drop a considerable of money to get on digital what even an AE-1 can offer you or to get the sturdiness of a F-1.

<br><br>

I think the debate is really what's should be the purpose of a photo? To me it's being printed on paper, mounted, displayed etc. If the purpose of your images is mainly to exist on computer screens I don't believe you need to get a $2000 (body only) Canon 10D to achieve that. On the other hand if you do want them to live on paper, film photo is still the best option unless (not talking about professional photographers such as photojournalists etc.) <br>

- You have just too much cash you don�t know what to do with it <br>

- You like the novelty and the gadget more than what it is supposed to do for you <br>

- You just can�t do without instant gratification <br>

None of which really have anything to do with the art of photography IMO. So why spend a multiple of what you would by getting an AE-1 and a couple of good lenses? I think Canon FD has still a good life to live and so has this forum.

[GerrySiegel]

One other thing, was hard for me to grasp. A forum user from India reminded me that in his country, a mechanical camera can be repaired, for a pittance whereas there are literally no in country facilities that repair electronics at a price that the average Indian can afford. (Reminds me of the old reworked vintage Jeeps in Phillipines you know). If we look to-now what is that invidious phrase "emerging countries?," I predict there will be a splendid market for the mechanical film cameras with their gears,levers,cams,pots a la FTb and FIn for a longish time. Apropos of nothing, I, just today shot a few doggie pics with my 16 y/o girl's meager 2 megapixel Oly Camedia. Sharpened it up fine true for

WEB use. Yet, I want more than web output. I love a big big print. And it will be a while before I can get the whole shebang...SLR (a must) and a brace of lenses, that will make the cost equation balance out. Meanwhile, as mom would say, be happy with your tools, use them in good health. Now,responding to forum activity,I am still swamped with whatifs I don't post.Someone give me a real summary on how to use all the features of the 300TL with a T90,like focus lock and background shadow adjustment,when to use TTL etc etc. This is a lifelong study(gasp!),yes I have the references that came out on that flash and ATTL. Simplicity has its virtues.Have you looked at the 30 icons on the Powershot S230 menu screen,yipes,eyestrain. We know this was built by a people whose language is Kanji !!!:-) Aloha,Gerry

[GerrySiegel]

One other thing, was hard for me to grasp. A forum user from India reminded me that in his country, a mechanical camera can be repaired, for a pittance whereas there are literally no in country facilities that repair electronics at a price that the average Indian can afford. (Reminds me of the old reworked vintage Jeeps in Phillipines you know). If we look to-now what is that invidious phrase "emerging countries?," I predict there will be a splendid market for the mechanical film cameras with their gears,levers,cams,pots a la FTb and FIn for a longish time. Apropos of nothing, I, just today shot a few doggie pics with my 16 y/o girl's meager 2 megapixel Oly Camedia. Sharpened it up fine true for

WEB use. Yet, I want more than web output. I love a big big print. And it will be a while before I can get the whole shebang...SLR (a must) and a brace of lenses, that will make the cost equation balance out. Meanwhile, as mom would say, be happy with your tools, use them in good health. Now,responding to forum activity,I am still swamped with whatifs I don't post.Someone give me a real summary on how to use all the features of the 300TL with a T90,like focus lock and background shadow adjustment,when to use TTL etc etc. This is a lifelong study(gasp!),yes I have the references that came out on that flash and ATTL. Simplicity has its virtues.Have you looked at the 30 icons on the Powershot S230. We know this was built by a people whose language is Kanji !!!:-) Aloha,Gerry

[scott_ferris]

I'm brand new to Photo.net and ofcourse the FD forum, I'm not

new to the cameras, I bought my first camera, an AE1, new in

1978, I still use it and it meters and exposes as well as it ever

did.

Why the slowdown, well people are deffinitely thinking about

more important things, money is tighter, but another interesting

thing, (apart from the novelty of digital) is the availability of faster

and wider lenses for newer cameras.

I have been semi-pro now pro for a good while and as i said

have used Canon Fd equipment for all of it, recently however i

had to bite the bullet and went EOS. Why? Do i need 10 frames a

second, 45 point area AF etc ? No. I do need good speed, good

quality wide angles. Sure I love my IS 70-200, not for the IS but

its a 2.8 not an f4.0, but heres the big one, how much did you pay

for your last FD 20-35 f3.5? If it's a good one and its less than

$700 you did very well. How much is a new (old stock ?) 17-35

f2.8 USM ? Around $850!

I held off going AF as long as I could, I will always own my AE1

as well as several F1N and A1's and assorted lenses.As for my

large collection of lenses, I have replaced almost all of them in

speed quality and range with three lenses, these were

expensive but not as bad as you might think, and were I to sell

my FD equipment would get 90% of it back, a very sobering

thought.

Take care everyone, but more importantly, take pictures.

[douglas_green1]

Scott, the answer to your conundrum is to get Primes, rather than Zooms, at the wide end. You could get a Tokina 17mm f3.5 in FD mount for less than $150, or a 20mm Canon FD 2.8 for less than $300 or a 24mm Canon FD for less than $150.

 

Moving closer to normal, a perfectly nice 28mm Canon FD f2.8 can be had for $60 (or for the same price, a Kiron 28mm f2). in 35mm focal length, a Canon FD f2.8 is around $50, while a faster f2 is barely more than $100

 

For me, I'd cover this range with a 17mm f3.5 Tokina, a 24mm f2.8 Canon, and a 35mm f2 Canon. All gotten in excellent or better condition on the big auction site, total outlay under $400, for noteably superior optical performance than any FAST wide zoom, and as you noted, 1/2 the price.

 

And to boot, you will have less linear distortion with these primes, and they are better lenses than the newer zooms.

[scott_ferris]

Dear Douglas, thanks for your reply. I hope i didn't loose my

point, a good collectable and useable AE1, A1, Ftb etc can be

bought for a song, the good ( L series) lenses, which in mint

condition were always going to be collectors items, even in good

user condition do not have the price disparity from newer faster

(better ?) lenses than one would think.

Now I grant you an FD 200mm f1.8 L is a rare and beautiful

thing, and to many people (me included) is worth in the region of

$3000,( a mint EF can be had for the same money) but I don't

believe an FD 135mm f2.0 is worth $400-$600 when a newer

(and sharper) EF 135mm f2.0 L can be had in the same

condition for not much more.

To compare a tokina 17 3.5 to a16-35 2.8 is not really on, and

besides it only adds weight to my point, after buying a Tokina an

FD 20 2.8 an FD 24 and an FD 35 I have spent $650 or so and i

have four lenses to carry, compared to the EF 17-35 f2.8 L at

about the same money!

On the sharpness issue, in real world use I have never had

anybody say upon seeing a picture of mine "shame its not

sharp" I have taken a lot of out of focus shots, but these i bin, in

reality i don't think many people can see the differance between

a photo taken with a prime as opposed to a good quality zoom. I

include my 35-105 f3.5 in that. I love that lens.

Now I hope I'm only stimulating discusion and not annoying

anybody and if I come across as too opinionated please forgive

me, the bottom line is I love Canon FD equipment and even

though I have spent a fortune going AF i will always use my F1N

and FD50 macro for my important flower shots, ( a good portion

of my income).

[douglas_green1]

Well, for one thing, I can't IMAGINE really needing 4 lenses to truly cover the range of 17-35. I specifically suggested 3 lenses, at 1/2 the price, and probably less bulk and weight. Secondly, I have yet to see a super wide zoom that I would match to an any above average super-wide prime lens. And, I would NEVER pick an ultra fast super-wide lens, as the compromises inherent in that design are really poor.

 

Just because someone CAN build a 17-35mm f2.8 lens doesn't mean we should use it. To me, it's a lens I wouldn't buy if it were widely and economically available for any mount I needed it in.

 

Personally, I would never use a zoom for any quality oriented work at any focal length wider than 28mm. The degradation vs. primes is simply too severe with regard to linear distortion.

[douglas_green1]

BTW, I would also contend that a 17mm f3.5 prime can reasonably be hand-held at one speed slower than a much bulkier 17-35mm f2.8 zoom would be, thus, such a comparison is absolutely valid. My 3 primes were picked based on optimal quality vs. value. And, I gain the added advantage of a FASTER 35mm lens than the zoom.

 

Also, I never said that an ultra-wide zoom might not be sharp enough. My critique with that class of lens is specifically about how well it can avoid barrell and pincushion distortion across it's zoom range.

[scott_ferris]

Dear Douglas,

I never said I did need four lenses to cover the 16-35mm focal

range. For my work i find one more than adequate, I was making

a Canon FD related point, on an FD forum.

The fixed focal length verses zoom argument is unwinable, you

believe you need the distortion levels in your equipment I pay the

rent with the distortion levels in mine, you move around to get

what you believe to be the best compositions, when I am able so

do I.

My original point was, one of the reasons why there might be a

declining interest in the FD forum (which I took to be FD in

general) was that there are more camera related options for

people to choose from, and there are fewer and fewer bargains

out there.

Take care, lets hear some other opinions aswell, Scott.

[douglas_green1]

Scott, In fact, in real life, I DON'T have any more need to move around to compose with prime lenses than with a zoom at the wideangle range. I get where I want to be, and choose the lens that will give me the perspective I'm looking for, whether I have a zoom or a prime on the camera. I will acknowledge that when using telephotos, a zoom can save some noticeable moving around, but with wideangles, it's not a factor at all.

[alexo]

I don't think you guys are getting each other's points.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Douglas argues that for the best quality and a reasonable price, 3 primes would adequately cover the wide angle range. I don't think there can be an argument that primes are of better quality than zooms.

 

What I think that Scott is saying is that for his purposes, a zoom is good enough quality wise and he finds the convenience to be more important that he's willing to compromise in quality.

 

Both are legitimate points.

[scott_ferris]

Thankyou Alexander,

 

I agree entirely, (i own and use a lot of primes, just not in EOS)

however my original point still stands, the cost/availability of

some FD equipment, particulaly zooms, (far and away the

consumers most popular lens) means you can buy newer and

possibly better equipment for similar money, and this might be

why there is a slow down in FD interest.

 

Many thanks, Scott.