craig

Same lens and settings as above.

Canon EOS R5, FD 80-200mm f/4L @ 200mm, f/5.6, 1/1000 sec, ISO (why do I still keep wanting to say ASA?) 200. Novoflex FD-RF adapter.

<p>I saw a lens like this in Tokyo back in the mid-1980s, but it was a display model. Cool find.</p>

<p>Probably time to buy some fresh rolls. If the exp. was 2001, then the film is probably 17 or 18 years old. </p>

<p>Or, you can roll your own film and get about 45 shots :)</p>

<p>The A-1 was my first "REAL" camera, and I purchased it in 1985. I still use it as my primary camera, even though I own several FD varients. I like my T90 but I don't love it. The A-1 just feels like a solid tool, like grandpa's wrench. The T90 has these flimsy doors that just don't cut it for me. </p>

<p>As a first camera, I am absolutely for getting a Canon A-1. Just get one that's well-sorted and has recently been CLA'ed. You'll spend an extra few bucks in the beginning, but you'll save a lot over taking it to a repair place (if you can find one). The ebay squeek kit is a joke; I wouldn't even consider going that route. What I love about the A-1 is that for as many features as it has, it can be a minimalist camera as well. Full manual is perfect, and the control wheels are as intuitive as anything you'd find on a modern EOS. </p>

<p>I take my A-1 everywere and am amazed at how many people come out of the woodwork to talk about the good old days when cameras like these were the norm. I'm not a big fan of plasticky cameras. I got rid of my EF gear save for the EOS5 (A2E international) and a couple basic lenses. I never shoot digital and pretty much only shoot with my FD gear now. I've always felt that people who learned on film are better photographers because they don't get the instant gratification of seeing thier photo on a tiny screen, and they have to work to compose their shots and think about exposure and of course, you can't just fix it in photoshop. You have to work for your shots because film isn't cheap.</p>

<p>Focus on the eyes, compose using the rule of thirds, use a grey card to get the exposure figured out and you'll never go wrong. Don't always trust a zoom lens to keep focus if you're zooming in to focus on the eyes and zooming out to compose. A good 135mm prime lens set to f4.0 is my favorite setup. Your preferences may vary.</p>

<p>You created excessive resistance on the on/off switch on your winder when you blocked the rewind wheel and overloaded the circuit. You probably melted the solder joint at the switch. It's a common issue, especially on older electronics. If you own a decent set of micro tools (I'm talking Wiha, not Craftsman) and own a decent solder station (check out the Aoyue 9378; that's my favorite bargain gun), then you can re-melt the solder joints and should get plenty more life out of your winder. You might also want to check any resisters with a multimeter and apply a tiny bit of dielectric grease (i.e., what you can fit on the tip of a toothppick) to the motor to keep the moving parts running well.</p>

<p>Alternately, get a new winder (lol). They're pretty cheap.</p>

<p>I hate to bring this back from the dead, but there is so much bad information in this thread that I'm kind of surprised it's in a FD forum. Flavio's post is about as close to correct as I've seen reading through all of this. As for pricing between the A-1 and the AE-1P, pricing has a lot to do with the nostalgia factor, and since more peolple owned the AE-1/AE-1P, it's going to generate more interest on fleabay.<br>

The A-1 was superior in pretty much every way over the AE-1/AE-1P. The only upgrade that the AE-1P had over its predecessor was that it got a Program mode, which is what the "P" stands for. The Program mode was borrowed directly from the A-1. The A-1 has exposure memory, preview, lock-down preview, the focusing screens are 100% user interchangable (it was Canon marketing hype to say you had to return it to Canon so they could take out 1 screw to change screens... a joke, really) and getting a bright screen for the A-1 is not a problem.<br>

Insofar as reliability, I've found that the A-1 and the AE-1P are on par and you can expect the same duration of usefulness between C-L-As. I've purchased the A-1 new and the AE-1P new (as a back-up camera) and ditched the AE-1P after about a year since I never used it. The the A-1 has a better interface (all the EOS cameras and pretty much every other manufacturer "borrowed" the program wheel that the A-1 pioneered), the bright digital readout and the wider accessory range made the A-1 a hands-down better camera. I still use it as my go-to FD shooter (the T-90 stays in the bag now).</p>

<p>Stay away from the Ebay squeak repair kit. They send you a syringe with a short needle and a small baggie with a few drops of clock (watch) oil. Getting the lens mount screw out to access the dried-out mechanism is an exercise in futility. Send the camera in to Ken Oikawa (do a search for him) or your local camera repair shop, assuming one exists. They'll replace the deteriorated light seals, they'll re-calibrate your meter (which will need to be done on an old A1 since the plastic cover over the meter lens will have become opaque by now and will need to be removed or replaced). With a good CLA, you'll get 20-30 more years out of the camera.</p>

<p>Somehow, random number assignments makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight :-)</p>

<p>Several years ago, I sold off all but one of my EF lenses and EOS film bodies (A5) and decided to just stick with FD equipment. FD is where I started and FD will be where I end. To be honest, I was underwhelmed with auto focus and am completely underwhelmed with digital with the exception of point-and-shoot functionality like at birthday parties or visits with my mother-in-law. For me, photography as an art form is with film and paper and chemicals in a darkroom. It's the stink of the stop bath and the grabbing around in a pitch black closet for a pair of scissors. It's about not using the clone stamp on some piece of software, manipulating ones and zeros. You should be happy to have found film and by all means, embrace it while you still can. You'll get so much out of it, and you'll make friends along the way. It's a rare occasion when I take my A-1 with the power winder attached out of the bag and start shooting and people don't say "way cool camera, man!" Sometimes, older IS better.</p>

<p>It's because Philip Greenspun loved the ladies and this was his website ;-)</p>

<p>It's been a while since I've visited Photo.net (always bookmarked, but my hobbies are cyclical, so the photo bug comes and goes). <br>

<br />One thing I've always wondered is how the user ID# works. I've been a member here since 1999 and my ID is 130000. Does this mean I'm the 130,000th member, the 1,300th member, the 130th member or what? I know the question is probably pointless, but I'm honestly curious about it.</p>

<p>Learn the "Sunny f/16 rule" and go from there. Once you have that basic concept down, you can pretty much do all manual metering in your head no matter what the conditions and you'll get very good results. They used to print it on film boxes and everyone knew it. It was the first thing they taught in photo class before the scourge of digital photography ruined everything for us film users.<br>

<br />Great film photographers knew the following things back in the day:</p>

<ol>

<li>Sunny f/16 rule</li>

<li>The rule of thirds</li>

<li>Reciprocity failure</li>

<li>Exposure compensation</li>

<li>The Zone System</li>

<li>Push/pull processing</li>

<li>The size of your equipment DOES matter</li>

<li>Things not to discuss at the dinner table: Sex, politics, religion and Canon vs. Nikon</li>

<li>Kodachome and Plus-X Pan were almost holy, like the Shroud of Turin</li>

<li>It took time, patience, study and talent to be an exceptional photographer</li>

</ol>

<p>Have fun using film. You might find in the end that you'll find it more fulfilling than digital. For me, it's the fact that it's solid and real and not just a bunch of ones and zeros that are easily manipulated on a laptop.</p>

<p>I was shooting around Seattle the other day with my Canon A1 and ran into a fellow FD enthusiast, who was shooting with his T90. Turns out we've both been using FD cameras since the 1980's and the conversation inevitably went toward the direction that "they don't build cameras like these anymore."</p>

<p>He told me that he was once shooting with his T90 in San Francisco, trying to get an impossible shot, and managed to drop it off a cable car. He showed me the scar on the bottom of the camera, which wasn't too bad, all things considered.</p>

<p>Although I no longer had my original A1 (sold it to help pay for college), I recalled about a time I was shooting at a temple in Korea back in 1986 or 1987 and while rewinding my film, I lost my grip on the camera and it fell down a stone staircase and landed in a bush. I figured it was <em>destroyed</em>. Fortunately, the lens (a cheap 50mm f1.8) and the leather case took the brunt of the damage, and the camera came out almost completely unscathed.</p>

<p>I'm amazed at how much abuse these old cameras can take. Fortunately, the A1 I'm shooting with now is near-mint, and I'm a lot less clumsy with my gear, so I probably won't be dropping it down another flight of stairs anytime soon.</p>

<p>The conversation got me thinking about the crash-worthiness of these old FD cameras. Having had an EOS Elan I and II crash me for no obvious reason, I think these old FD cameras are built like tanks.</p>

<p>Out of a general sense of curiosity, I'd like to ask the group here what was the worst "accident" that your camera's ever been in and survived? Do you still use it?</p>

<p>You pulled a Henry David Thoreau and <em>simplified</em>. Good for you! A few years ago, I sold all of my camera gear that was made after 1988 and to be honest, I couldn't be happier. I feel so much more connected to my photography now that I'm not shooting digital or autofocus anymore. </p>

<p>I think the commenter is saying that the main subject (the glass) lacks contrast and definition against the background due to overexposure. Also, the shadows of the spices are a bit harsh and the reflections on the apple are bright and obtrusive. The bad lighting overwhelms the photograph, which causes the viewer to focus on its negative technical aspects as opposed to its positive compositional ones, though frankly, the composition of the scene leaves a bit to be desired as well. Good attempt though. Keep trying until you get it right. :)</p>

<p>I've also noticed that the prices on A1s have been getting a bit spendy as of late. That being said, I bought my current A1 on the bay for $225 about 8 years ago, but it was old stock, new in the box. That was the same price I paid for my original brand new A1 in 1985, so overall, I felt pretty happy with the purchase. As far as I'm concerned, the Canon A1 is a masterpiece, and there's no other camera in my quiver that I prefer shooting with more.<br>

On a side note, I just bought a T90 on the bay for $54 + shipping and the bloody thing looks like it's never been used. I'm taking it for a test drive this weekend at Mt. Rainier with a few rolls of Velvia that have been sitting in my freezer for a while. <br>

As others have said here, just be patient and eventually, you'll get the deal you're after. The guy I purchased the T90 from got it at an estate sale and knew nothing about the camera's intrinsic or historic value. As far as he was concerned, it was just an old camera in a box full of old cameras that belonged to some dead guy.</p>

I bought the e-bay DYI kit to fix the squeak on my A1, got out the screwdriver, filled up the little hypodermic needle with watch oil, couldn't get the screw off the camera, packed it all up, and sent it to a pro shop to have it repaired properly. I have NO regrets with that decision. The DYI kit from ebay is garbage.

Try taking a roll of photos using a gray card to manually meter off of. You'll know right away if it's a metering issue or your technique. Since you're splicing your photos in half with a bright sky, I'm guessing it's your technique. Try shooting your roll using the rule of thirds and see if that helps. If you can't get your hands on a gray card, then meter against the palm of your hand.

Hi David -

 

I was wondering if you were ever going to pay me the money you stole from me on E-Bay for that broken receiver you sent me. I know PayPal has cancelled your account because of it. I also know E-bay has suspended your account at dhornbrook@chartermi.net:

 

Transaction ID: 98996923Y15347636

Seller Name & Email: David Hornbrook, dhornbrook@chartermi.net

Transaction Amount: -$365.00 USD

eBay Item#: 290042422476

Transaction Date: Oct. 26, 2006

 

Since you refuse to answer my emails and since you obviously have no problems with stealing money from people, I figured I'd just google you and low and behold, here you are on a forum that I've been a member of for many years.

 

Please let me know when/if you plan to make this right. Thanks

 

Craig.

It's strange. I bought into the whole EOS thing back in the late '80s and got rid of my FD system. After a few years, I found myself longing for the days when I felt "connected" to my photography. That was something the EOS system just couldn't offer me. Little by little, I started re-investing in a new (used) FD system and rediscovered the passion that I left behind when I went with auto-everything.

 

Now I have about $4000 in EOS gear sitting in a closet collecting dust while I take my A-1 and my FD 80-200L lens with me just about everywhere. I can't be persuaded to buy into the digital revolution, since most of what I shoot is B&W film anyway. I'm simply not convinced that digital is the way to go in this medium. Apart from the $299 digital point-and-shoot that I bought for my wife's happiness, I've never found a need to buy into the 21st century.

 

To me, photography is about taking your time and seeing the forest for the trees. The old FD system is perfect for this and unlike most of the cheap "plasticky" EOS equipment (L-lenses excluded), the FD gear feels like serious tools to me. I just never got that out of my EOS system.

 

That said, it sounds like you have one very wise wife.

I realize this thread is pretty old, but for search purposes, this problem could be that the plastic cover on the meter sensor has degraded and yellowed over time and this is causing inaccurate readings. Again, a CLA should fix this. Another fix would be to open the camera up and remove the sensor cover (it looks like a piece of tape).