flavio_egoavil

<p>Get the FTb. As an owner of the EF, it's beautiful and everything, but the partial metering of the FTb puts you "in control", also it is much better for manual exposure control. But the top reason is that the EF, inside, is one of the MOST difficult cameras to repair, some noted repairmen on the internet have said they refuse to service it. While the FTb is straightforward to service.<br> I've seen the EF repair manual and indeed it is very very complex. </p>

<p>I had a F3 with the same problem. It's a lubrication issue, it just needs a CLA (clean, lube, adjust.)</p> <p> </p>

<p>I see you were very brave and stripped down the whole machine.<br> <br />To be honest, that's a very risky proposition unless you are an experienced camera tech. My "quick fix" method only requires the removal of the bottom plate and it is applying the WD40 in the specific point required. So less risky.</p> <p>In any case, since you have stripped it down that far, take an opportunity to clean the prism from the bottom, as well. Enjoy your AE-1, a very nice camera.</p>

<p>Steve, <br /> - The 675 battery will be a perfect replacement and work perfectly on your F-1.</p> <p>As for lenses:<br /> - There is no bad FD lens. Most FD lenses are really good.<br /> - FD Zoom lenses can be very good but note that many of them rely on internal mechanisms that have rubber parts. These parts can decay with time and the end result is that you have a zoom of way inferior optical performance. A sign of this is that the zoom lens is not parfocal anymore (that is, that focus does not stay stable when changing the focal length).</p> <p>You will easily find the most famous FD lenses listed elsewhere. But note that there are some FD lenses which were inexpensive, AND they are extremely sharp and good, for example:<br /> - FD 35/3.5 S.C<br /> - FDn 35/2.8<br /> - FDn 28/2.8, FD 28/2.8 S.C.<br /> - FD 100/2.8<br /> - FDn 135/2.8 and FD 135/2.5 S.C.</p> <p>Also note that the FL versions of the 35/3.5, "50/1.8 II", 55/1.2, and "50/1.4 II" are optically identical to their FD breech lock counterparts, the only difference is that the FD lenses are multicoated (if they say "SSC").</p>

<p>I owned that lens and loved it. Bokeh is really smooooth, the lens is sharp. But yes, sometimes there can be a bit of CA when shooting wide open and having high contrast edges.</p>

<p>Hi Chuck,</p> <p>I disagree. I own a full set of both Nikkor manual focus and Canon FD glass and i've long suspected the Canon lenses to be better overall. And now (2015) that people are trying the FD lenses on the Sony A7 cameras, the truth is slowly coming out. Grab the FD lenses before prices climb up. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi, <br> Since you want us to revisit the thread, i'll tell you what happened after my previous post:<br> - I had sold my Nikon F but later I bought again a Nikon F. The Nikon F has a "je ne seis quoi" that the F2 and F3 lack. Mine is with the plain prism and i must say that the F with the plain prism is much better than the F with a Photomic.</p> <p>- All in all, the F2AS and the F stay stored in my home, i almost never use them. Do you know which Nikon camera i'm using the most? The Nikon FG... Small, tiny, and useful.</p> <p>- As for the flaws of the Nikon F3, they were corrected in the 80s:<br> + you take the F3 camera<br> + add mechanical shutter modes of B, 1/90, 125, 250, 500, 1000, and 2000<br> - remove the silly 2nd shutter lever of the F3 (no need for it anymore)<br> - remove the silly LCD display and replace it with an excellent match-needle viewfinder<br> + add shutter-priority mode <br> + add variable meter patterns (centreweighted, partial, spot)<br> - remove Nikon F mount and replace with Canon FD mount...</p> <p>... <strong>then Voilá, you have the Canon New F-1,</strong> the best 35mm manual focus SLR, in my view.</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew!!</p>

<p>I've dug very deeply into this issue, because I had the same issue.</p> <p>Here's my complete take on this (see my post):<br> http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00WIQh</p> <p> </p>

<p>Very easy choice: The Mamiya RB67.</p> <p>For 35mm i'd chosen the Canon F-1, no need for the cumbersome "nikon twist" needed with the pre-AI lenses back then.</p> <p> </p>

<p>"fixed the fuzzy viewfinder lens with car paintwork cutting compound lens " --><br> <br> Perhaps this is the key to success? What is "car paintwork cutting compound"? Paint solvent? Or is this car paint polishing paste?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Your viewfinder is the CdS porroprism (made of mirrors) or is it an actual prism (solid glass)?</p> <p>I have the CdS porroprism and, while the meter is really accurate, the viewfinder is dim and really poooooooor for focusing. Basically i can't focus reliably with this thing, and I have pretty good eyesight.</p>

<p>If you have a scanner that is able to scan the film at an actual 4000dpi resolution, then yes, you would be extracting more or less all the information on the film. We're also assuming that the scanner is able to extract the full dynamic range contained in the film.</p> <p>However, the typical scanners used today, like the Epson V750, only have an actual 2200-2400dpi of scanning resolution, and then these figures are of detail which is rather fuzzy, not crisp at all. So you're actually discarding a lot of detail when using such a scanner, and results using an enlarger would be better.</p> <p>Finally, in such scanners, due to the effect of grain aliasing, grain will appear way bigger than it is when using films such as ISO 400 films. While the same print done optically will have much lower grain, and keeping all the detail.</p> <p>As for DSLRs and comparison to films, the typical DSLR uses bayer mosaic sensors with an antialias filter. Thus a "24MP" camera doesn't really have 24 megapixels each one sensitive to all colors, but each pixel is sensitive to a different color. Thus there is an interpolation algorithm to "reconstruct" image detail. And the anti-alias filter needed to do such reconstruction without artifacts, is a filter that effectively blurs the image, discarding detail.</p> <p>Of course, a sharpening algorithm applied afterwards restores sharpness, but not actual resolution. Thus, a 24MP typical DSLR has in reality about 12-18MP of actual pixel-sharp detail.</p> <p>Now, for high resolution fine grained ISO 100 B/W film, like Fuji Acros 100 carefully processed, i'd guess 4000dpi of image capture would capture all detail there is. This would extract 22MP of actual resolution on a 35mm frame. In my experience you can typically get about 14MP of actual resolution of most 35mm films, and easily 6MP in the worst case. Thus we could say a 35mm frame has about 6 to 22MP of actual resolution, typically 14.<br> <br />For a 6x7 negative there is exactly 4.53 times the area, so you can do the math: A 6x7 frame would have about 27 to 99MP of resolution, typically about 63MP. We're talking actual, pixel-sharp megapixels.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Short answer: The 250 lens.<br> Long answer:<br> The bigger the "absolute aperture", the shallower the DOF can be. Aperture = focal length / f stop<br> So for the 250 and the 127 lens:<br> 250 / 4.5 = 55.55mm<br> 127 / 3.8 = 33.42mm<br> So the 250 has more potential for narrow DOF. But even then, let's consider a 100mm f2.8 lens and a 200mm f5.6 lens. Both have the same absolute aperture. However, the 200mm will give more perspective compresion; for an equal framing (equal angle of view), the background will appear bigger (against the foreground) than when using the 100mm lens. Thus the 200mm lens will give the appearance of shallower DOF.</p> <p>Finally, the rule of thumb for 6x7 is that to compare with 35mm, you halve the FL and the aperture. So, for example the 90/3.8 lens is comparable to a 45/1.9 lens in 35mm. This also means another rule of thumb: stop down 2 stops more than in 35mm. Thus, f2.8 in 35mm would in theory be similar to f5.6 in 6x7 format.<br> <strong>However</strong>, since the usable resolution on the 6x7 format is far higher than in 35mm, and also the expectations for resolution on 6x7 format are higher, and typically such negatives are enlarged more, in ACTUAL use one would want to stop down the lens even more. Or, in other terms, DOF on the 6x7 format is even narrower than what the above rule of thumb indicates. Thus, your typical 90/3.8 lens is more comparable to a theoretical 45/1.2 or even 45/1.0 lens on 35mm.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Forgot to add, the RB and RZ cameras have a reputation for being as reliable as tanks.</p> <p> </p>

<p>As a happy owner of two RB67, plus other MF cameras like two C330 cameras and a Pentax 6x7, i must say the RB is my favorite of them all. The Mamiya 645 cameras -all of them- never got a good reputation for reliability. <br> The RB and RZ lens system is fabulous; the modern RZ lenses are still state-of-the art and probably as good as they can be made.<br> The camera (RB67 or RZ67) knows no limits and it can do everything with the excellent modular design and big array of accesories. The RZ can use RB lenses as well, so the array of lenses for it is BIG. You can shoot 6x4.5 as well!! (i do 6x4.5 with my RB whenever I feel like saving film.) <br> As for lightness, it is a heavy camera compared to others but it's still portable, no doubt about it. Fit a 90/3.8 or 127/3.8 lens (from the RB series), a waist-level finder and it will be light enough to walk around a city for about 3 hours with it. Just get a good strap. The RB/RZ are quick to operate -- focusing is easy and quick; film advance and shutter cocking are quick as well. Also, the RB/RZ have almost no mirror slap, so they can be used handheld at speeds which are only limited by you, not by the camera.<br> All in all, the RZ is the more capable camera, the one with better optics, and the one that will enable you to shoot without limits.</p>

<p>+1 to Alan's comments. <br> There is more than one "quick and dirty" (i.e. non-mirror-box-removing) fix. One is Alan's, another is Rick Oleson's, here is my method which I posted on the internet, way back in 2001. Here i indicate the exact point where, by just spraying some drops of WD40, the squeak would be solved for years. Did it to my A-1 with no problems at all way back in 2001, the camera still works as today (as of 2015 -- so it's about 14 years).<br> http://www.baytan.org/prak/pic/a1grease.gif<br /><br />Yes, it is just caused by lack of lubrication on a specific flywheel. On the GIF above I indicate the point where the mechanism can be easily re-lubricated, using a common WD40 can, the one that comes with the straw. WD40 is a mix of kerosene -which will loosen the gummed-up lubricant, and extremely light lubricant.<br> The point I indicate has no electronics around, by the way.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Answering this post since I had the same problem and there was not so much info on the internet when searching for Canon F-1 aperture indicator calibration or "lollipop" calibration. As far as i've found no one has yet fully explained the calibration that i'm about to show here.</p> <p>I had exactly the same problem, all my lenses had the F-1N lollipop showing an aperture value that is about 1/2 to 2/3 stops off from the actual value on the aperture ring. I thought it was the camera.</p> <p>But when i bought another, mint F-1N with a 28/2.0 lens, there were two surprises:<br> 1) the camera had the same problem with my lenses!<br> 2) the 28/2.0 lens had no such problem! and also showed the correct aperture on my old F-1N!</p> <p>In short, this is a LENS PROBLEM not a CAMERA PROBLEM. Why all my lenses had the problem? Because camera techs here do not know how to calibrate the FD lenses, simple. And they disassemble them all of the time since lenses get fungus so easily in this climate.</p> <p>Inside the FD lens there are two adjustments that are related:</p> <p>a. There is an adjustment so the aperture value that is communicated to the body (the F-1N in this case) is the same as the one on the aperture ring. In other words, this is a calibration of the position of the "aperture signal lever." This is what was off (miscalibrated) on my lenses. This adjustment is done through dissasembling the FD lens from the bayonet side. Once you take out the rear part where all the levers and pins are, you will see there is a small adjustable stop for the aperture signal lever, held by two screws. By adjusting this stop you can make sure the F-1N "sees" the correct aperture value.</p> <p>b. Also, the aperture value itself (the diameter at a given aperture) can be calibrated as well. And a technician that opens up the lens for repair can mess with this calibration by simply taking out the aperture assembly. The calibration is done by taking out all the lenses from the front until you see the aperture assembly. This assembly is held by three (3) screws and by slightly loosening the screws, the entire assembly can be rotated a little bit and this actually calibrates the actual aperture diameter at the given setting.</p> <p>When you fiddle with the (a) adjustment, (b) will be influenced as well.</p> <p>So what you need to do is calibrate (a) and then (b). It's more or less easy. First take out the rear of the lens mount and calibrate (a) so the F-1N viewfinder shows the correct value that is on the aperture ring. Now assemble back the rear of the lens and go for (b) calibration: What we will do is to check that the open-aperture metering is consistent with the stopped-down metering. Mount the lens on the F-1N, point to a constant light source (for example, the wall on a room that is lit indoors) and choose a setting that makes the meter needle point to f8. Now stop down the lens and confirm if the aperture needle points to the index mark for stopped-down metering (the mark next to "5.6"). It will probably be off. Then calibrate (b) by twisting the aperture assembly until the aperture needle points to the stopped-down-metering-index-mark... <br> Repeat the test using f4, f5.6, and f11. If the stopped-down metering is consistent with what the open-aperture (standard) metering shows, then the aperture has been correctly calibrated. Now tighten again the screws that hold the aperture assembly. (<em>When tightening the screws the adjustment is usually disturbed, so check again.</em>)</p> <p>Assemble the lens back again and now you have a FULLY CALIBRATED lens with a fully calibrated aperture value and aperture signal lever as well! I did this with my new-FD 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 200/4 lenses. Curiously, the 50/1.8 did not have the small adjustment stop for adjusting (a). But you can use some tweezers to bend the inside part of the "aperture signal lever", to perform the same adjustment. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Wow, and I felt bad because my F-1N had some brassing...</p> <p>Rick Janes: Amazing that they called you "a moron" for not buying an Olympus OM-1. I have had an OM-1 and i would never ever ever consider it a better camera than the F-1. </p>

<p>Interesting and well balanced discussion.<br /> I have owned (or own) the Nikon F, F2AS, and F3. Also the Canon F-1 and F-1N (New).<br /> Comparing the Nikon F3 versus F2AS, both have equally bright viewfinders. The F3 feels a bit more solid than the F2AS, surprisingly. <br /> However, when using the photometer in manual mode (watching the +/- marks), the LED display of the F2AS is way, way easier and clearer to see than the one in the LCD display of the F3. Particularly on the dark. <strong>The LCD display of the F3 is truly a bad design, having too small +/- marks, and being impossible to see in the dark</strong> (unless touching the ridiculously tiny button to enable the finder light.)<br> <br /> Also, as mentioned before, the F2AS really lets you feel the exact tripping point of the shutter button. While tripping the shutter in the F3 is significantly less precise. For me, this is an important factor. <br /> Unreliability: The F3 is probably the most unreliable professional camera. Or at least the metering system. I have seen many of them with non-working meters. The meter on mine stopped working with no reason at all; not even during operation! I just stored the camera in its bag for 2 or 3 months and the meter died. <br /> I'll probably sell my F3, now that i have the F2AS.<br /> Now, the Nikon F is more solid-feeling than either two. Besides that "solid", mechanical feel, the F2 is a slightly better camera.<br /> Finally, the Canon F-1N (new) is a better camera than the F3 and F2; even brighter viewfinder, much more solid feel, better fit and finish. And the Canon F-1 (original model) is even better built, and has even higher fit and finish (and solidness of feel) than even the original Nikon F. Again, note that i own all cameras cited (except the Nikon F, which i just sold last month.)</p> <p> </p>

<p>The chrome 105mm is one of my favorite lenses. The images it creates are just great.</p>

<p>My favorite was the FD 55mm f1.2 S.S.C non aspherical, which has the same formula as the FL 55/1.2.</p> <p>It was a lens of beautiful bokeh and results, with pretty good definition once stopped down to f2.8.</p> <p>I sold it but i miss it every day...</p>

<p>Riqfi, I forgot you're Swede. Well, that means there will be no problem to find a competent technician to keep the camera in good shape. Once you service the light seals there should be no light leak problems.</p>

<p>Foma's "Fomapan 100" is a nice film and really cheap.</p> <p>If you're using Medium Format, Fomapan 400 is extremely beautiful stuff, cheap as well. Also available in 35mm format, but perhaps a bit grainy for 35mm. I will dedicate a thread to Foma 400 someday.</p>