barryreid

FWIW I like the XD-7 best and would say, from a small sampling, Minolta is OK (better than Olympus OM, for example) on coating related issues like veiling flare.

So, I bought an AT-1 off eBay a while back but due to lack of time, inclination and most of all batteries I never tested it at the time and it’s been sitting around for a while. Unfortunately I think there may be an issue with the meter. The needle sits low in most light, only jumping up to around the middle of the scale in very bright light e.g. when the sun is in the frame. My question is, would this be normal behaviour or is it likely that the cds cell is past its best? For reference the battery check say the battery is good. It may be partly that the lens is a little slow, being a 35/3.5, so that may be a factor. However I had an AT-1 as back up to my T90 for a couple of years and don’t remember this being an issue I'm pretty sure it would have been used with slower zooms. Further, when I change shutter speed and aperture the lollipop moves, which I expected, but it als moves when I change ISO, is that normal? Sorry for all the questions, but they do mainly boil down to ‘is this normal’ and I don’t think there’s a more FD experienced group out there.

The magic is in lenses that say S.S.C. on the front. Google “Canon K35 look” Thankfully that means FDn glass has remained relatively unfashionable. Until somebody in the cine crowd catches on that FDn are mainly SSC too.

IMO it's a bit under-rated. Good but not great and probably worth more than it goes for which can be as low as £15-25 here in the UK. I used it as my main telephoto for a few years in the 90s to early 2000s. It's sharp enough and the CA's it does have were not a problem for me on film. It was retired when I went digital but because it's cheap I never sold it. Then when Sony's A7r came around I ran a test and mid to longer distances with the 70-210, Tamron SP 70-210/3.5 and Contax 80-200. I thought it was slightly better than the Tamron, with less CAs and better contrast. The Contax was clearly better. Incidentally, it's the trombone zoom and focus with a single big grip as are all of the above lenses, which, growing up with manual focus film cameras I like though not everyone does.

I still own my T90, my first FD camera, bought new in 1990 and won’t part with it. It has to be said though, that using a camera which is so much like an Eos in this day and age is not my idea of an alternative to digital. I’m much more likely to pick up the new F-1 or even my AE-1 Program these days.

Looks in Decent shape. I also recently got a new F-1. I used to have with FD gear from '91 until 2005 when Digital forced me over to the Eos system which I've never really liked. I kept only my T90 & 50/1.4. Recently I've been shooting film sometimes, with a rag tag lot of different bodies and lenses. This year I have decided to re-focus in the FD system. Sadly, the T90 felt too close to a modern AF camera so I re-bought the New F-1. For such a great, flexible, robust camera The F-1N seems like a bargain at a time when eBayers are paying silly money for AE-1 & AE-1P bodies. Lenses though... Wow - prices on some like the 50L & 85L have gone up quite a lot and the old 24, 55 & 85 Aspherical's have gone nuts. On the other hand, some really nice old FD lenses like the 20-35L and the macros are a bit lower than I remember, specially the 200/4 Macro. So although prices are higher overall there is a bit of swings and roundabouts.

Not only that but Canon has quietly increased UK prices on the EF and RF lenses and RF bodies over the last few months. The 50mm TS-E which is on my want list is over around 15% more expensive than 18 months ago. Even the R5 & R6 bodies have gained £100 lately.

My first was Halina 1000 which my granny bought me from the local chemists. I still have it somewhere. The first camera I bought myself was a secondhand Pentax MV-1 with a 50mm f2. In some ways no more glamorous than the Halina in 1987, as Canon’s space age Eos range arrived. It was sold long ago, but I recently bought one and plan to shoot my next roll of film with it - Green for Go!

That style mostly 'self-identifies' as 'Documentary Photography' and definitely not as 'Fine Art' Also, Just to help you figure the difference, in the digital world 'Fine Art' photographers still like to refer to inkjet prints as 'giclee' when there are gullible punters around. 'Documentarians' and plain 'Artists' tend to refer to them as 'Digital Prints'

When 'Fine' and 'Art' are hypothecated in photography what falls out is crassly commercial, whether trad or digital. It typically incorporates landscape or the partially clad. It is primarily made to be sold to people of limited discernment who need something nice to fill the big wall behind the sofa, so it can be ignored in favour of the TV - which is in front of the sofa. It's typically of a high technical standard, because otherwise 'I could do that.' It may be true to say that even painters of pretty seascapes for little galleries in pretty coastal towns are less hidebound by dull convention than 'Fine Art' photography.

The GT is a great camera. I bought a used one as a student in the early 90s which went on college trips, to night clubs etc and generally got completely abused until it died in around 2001.

There were 3 Canon made widgets for this purpose. 1 the manual diaphragm adapter is a fidddly little bit of plastic you wedge against one of the levers on the back of the lens. 2 macro hood which is, essentially, a rear cap with the back cut off. These are still easy to get on eBay and I use one. 3 Stepping up a level of sophistication (& cost, which varies widely) there is the auto macro ring intended to be actuate reversed lenses or lenses on a manual extension tube with a double cable release but could be used to check lenses too.

Maybe it's a 'Marmite' thing as we say in the UK. Maybe it's just what you first used. I have had FD stuff for 30 years (a T90 bought in late 1990) and have always avoided B/L lenses wherever possible. I find them fiddly to mount and remove compared with FDn. On the newer lenses the lock button is consistently positioned so if you have a finger on that the alignment is pure muscle memory. A B/L lens can be any way up so you need to look at what you are doing. Plus, on my one remaining B/L lens, the partial turn has failed - OK with had it been a 50/1.8 but not so much for a beast like the 55/1.2! It's closer on removal, but I still prefer the newer lenses. With a FDn lens to push the button you get a good grip on the lens and twist, whereas with the B/L sometimes feels like you need three hands - one for the camera, one for the lens and a third to turn the ring...

Screens are pretty readily available and the vast majority of New F-1 bodies for sale will have the AE screen. The screens have a two letter designation with the meter pattern first then screen type, so; AE is average, PE is partial and SE is spot. E is the type which, in this case is the standard split image with microprism collar. One other advantage not mentioned so far over every other FD body except the T90 is a the F-1 bodies offer a 1/2000 shutter speed. Ultimately with the New F-1 you are getting the ability to tailor the camera to behave just how you want it to without extra options to distract when you are shooting.

I think the New F-1 is great. I collected all of the FD bodies except the TX & TLb a few years back, along with quite a lot of lenses. In the end I have kept only the New F-1 and T90 which are IMO the pinnacles of the Canon line. For me Av mode and proper open aperture metered manual are what I need. The F-1N provides the Av mode which elevates it over the original for my needs. I have both the plain head, AE head and a chimney type finder. I also have a few screens with different meter patterns and a grid. Building out a full kit like that is now quite pricey but the chimney type finder used in manual mode would be nice for slow paced landscape work off a tripod.

Contax G1 or G2 glorified - point and shoots with a distance scale in the VF. The G1 is better if you want to manually focus. Not cheap of course.

I do have an X-700 and can assure you it only shows the suggested shutter speed in manual mode.

I agree this is an issue with the A & T series bodies, but they are not alone - for example manual mode in the Minolta X-700 works the same way as on an A-1/ AE-1/ EF.

I have owned both, along with most of the rest of the FD Cameras since getting my T90 back in 1990. I now only own a new F-1 and a T90. I find the T90 much better than the A-1 in pretty much every possible way. I love the multiple metering modes especially the multi-spot metering with its shadow/highlight bias buttons. I mainly shoot in Av mode, so the best compliment is the robust, flexible New F-1 with AE head. I also have the plain head and Winder FN. If I ever bought an A-series again it would be the match needle manual only AT-1 - The only A or T series Canon to have open aperture manual metering.

Or you could go adaptall-2: Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5: £170 Tamron 24mm f/2.5: £50 Tamron SP 28-105 f/2.8 £150 Tamron SP 90 f/2.5 Macro: £100 Tamron SP 80-200 f/2.8: £200 Tamron SP 400 f/4: £450 Total: £1150 ($1500) Which leave plenty for whatever camera & mounts you'd like...

The 17/4 was quite good indeed. I had the breechlock SSC version for a number of years and was happy with it.

Tricky, the 55/1.2 FD Aspherical would be ideal but is rare and stratospherically priced. I have owned the plain Jane non-Asph. version but, unfortunately, found it to be big, heavy and not really better than the 50/1.4 with 1.2 being a bit too glowy.

Ideally Neither bit if I had to pick one it would be the AE-1P. A bit less capable but so much less fiddly in use. On the other hand, on eBay it often costs more to get a good clean AE-1P than to land an A-1 so maybe better off with the more capable A-1 after all.

You should also mention the AT-1 which is plain old match needle manual body. Personally I eschewed AF and ran with a Canon T90 when I was a student, with good eyesight, back in the 90’s and stayed with FD until the mid ‘00s. During that spell the AT-1 was a nice, basic back up.

Ive found the same with the EF, it goes to ‘approximately’ 30s with batteries.