Canon FX, circa 1965

[traveler_101]

http://www.photosolution.co.uk/ebay/DSN02334.JPG

http://www.photosolution.co.uk/ebay/DSN02333.JPG

http://www.photosolution.co.uk/ebay/DSN02335.JPG

Anyone have/have had this camera model? I used this model in the 1980s (bought used), my first real camera, and sometimes I wonder about getting it back - though I haven't shot with a SLR for a long time. Any experiences with it?

 

[Red Rock Bill]

My first SLR.bought it used in late 60s still have it.I remember the hi and low range meter next I bought a FTQL used.....it's long gone....seems so long ago...regards,Bill

 

[Mackinaw]

The precursor to the Canon F-series of cameras. Following the FX was the FP, Pellix, FT, FTb, etc. All, are pretty much based on the FX “chassis.” I owned a FX years back but sold it and bought a FP (no meter). The FX is a good basic camera designed to take Canon FL lenses (though FD lenses will work on it too). Solid, well-made, smooth controls. Fully capable of taking good pictures. Personally, I’d rather own a FTb but there’s really nothing wrong with the FX.

Jim B.

 

[View Range]

I bought an FX new when they came out. I had problems with the shutter on the first one; the camera store gave me another one in exchange. I had continuous problems with apertures sticking. I resolved at that time to only use Nikons and Leicas and have stayed true to that resolve.

 

[peterm1]

I have always had something of a soft spot for Canon FL mount gear but in truth prefer the lenses to the camera bodies with the exception of the original F1 Canon SLR pro body which truly was exceptional. I have owned a few consumer grade Canon bodies and while I can't point to anything specific about them that I disliked I did feel that they were a bit behind Nikons of a similar era in terms of design and handling but they were still robust and good cameras as I recall. I cannot comment on the FX specifically however.

Never the less the lenses are strongly built and optically nice. The 50mm f1.8 depicted in the photo you linked I recall to be a very good performer like many 50mm f1.8 lenses of the time.

 

[Kiwijohn]

I picked one up for $25 couple of years a go with the 58mm f/1.2.
Only use Kodak BW400CN in it & love it, though I've just bought the last roll in town. The meter is a bit of a pain, but no worse than sticking one on my Fuji GSW690iii.
Like the FX so much, I picked up a 35mm f/2.5 as well. It is a solid camera that will last another 50 years if I can find the battery.

 

[bmattock]

I have the FX. First SLR I ever owned, my dad bought it for me in a pawn shop back in the 1970s. Had it restored. Have all the FL lenses except the two 19mm. Love the FL lenses, but the FX is my favorite SLR, for nostalgic reasons. FYI, it has a far better focus screen than the brightest M42 body I ever used. One drawback is with eyeglasses it is hard to see the whole screen.

 

[bmattock]

Here are my Canon FL-mount bodies (FX and FT) with several of my faster lenses for them.

From left to right, 55mm f1.2, 50mm f1.4 (II), 50mm f1.8, 35mm f2.5, 58mm f1.2.

 

[Robert Lai]

It was my first SLR also. My uncle had bought it when it came out in 1964. He then sold it to my dad who let me use it.
The FL lenses have a tendency to gum up the aperture leaves with helical grease. They need to be cleaned, or else the aperture gets stuck. Mine came with the 58mm f/1.2 FL, which is a radioactive lens, and can yellow with time.

The issues for the cameras are the foam placed around the pentaprism. If you don't get rid of this foam, it will in time pull the silver off the prism. You then get dark patches on the sides of the viewfinder frame.

The meter scale is shifted by a silk cord. If your scale doesn't move with the shutter speed dial rotation, then the cord may have broken.

I eventually sold my FX in favor of an FTb. The FTb shows the direct lineage from the FX, if you put them side by side. They will even fit in each other's cases.

 

[gb hill]

Nice collection of Canon's Bill. that 58/1.2 is a rarity I'd bet. Don't recall ever seeing one.

 

[bmattock]

It was my first SLR also. My uncle had bought it when it came out in 1964. He then sold it to my dad who let me use it.
The FL lenses have a tendency to gum up the aperture leaves with helical grease. They need to be cleaned, or else the aperture gets stuck. Mine came with the 58mm f/1.2 FL, which is a radioactive lens, and can yellow with time.

The issues for the cameras are the foam placed around the pentaprism. If you don't get rid of this foam, it will in time pull the silver off the prism. You then get dark patches on the sides of the viewfinder frame.

The meter scale is shifted by a silk cord. If your scale doesn't move with the shutter speed dial rotation, then the cord may have broken.

I eventually sold my FX in favor of an FTb. The FTb shows the direct lineage from the FX, if you put them side by side. They will even fit in each other's cases.

I've had my two bodies rebuilt a few years back. The FT had the deslivered mirror but I found a good donor. My lenses have been ok, touch wood.

I have a black FTbN I also had rebuilt. Until I went to Pentax and Sigma for dSLR, I was a Canonista.

 

[bmattock]

Nice collection of Canon's Bill. that 58/1.2 is a rarity I'd bet. Don't recall ever seeing one.

Got lucky and bought them before people culted on them. Saw one go attached to a Pellix a week ago, missed out and forgot to bid, it went for $60 on Shopgoodwill.com. I was a bit bummed.

 

[Mackinaw]

Nice collection of Canon's Bill. that 58/1.2 is a rarity I'd bet. Don't recall ever seeing one.

I have two of these lenses. Both were on Pellix’s that I bought for a song when eBay first came into it’s own so many years back. As someone pointed out before, they contain radioactive glass (thorium?) and do yellow. Surprisingly, sharpness isn’t that bad at F1.2 and the bokeh at that aperture can be truly bizarre. The 58mm focal length is also pretty good for portraits. I’m lucky to own a FD 55/1.2 aspherical, so that’s the lens I use on my Canon SLR’s when I need speed. I should probably sell one of my FL 58/1.2’s.

Jim B.

 

[farlymac]

Though I've never had an FX, I do own some FT, TL, FTb, and FTbn models, and find them quite capable. I liken the FT to a Nikkormat. I'm not sure I'd care for that external meter mount. There is no way to compensate for using telephoto lenses.

PF

 

[Robert Lai]

If you're worried about light fall-off with extension for the macro lens, the Canon 55mm f/3.5 FL Macro has it figured out for you.
It has a compensating aperture, so as you focus closer, the aperture will open up to keep the effective light transmission value the same. Nikon did the same thing with their Micro-Nikkor before the TTL meters became commonplace.

Also, if you use the 25mm extension ring, you need to rotate the lens 180 degrees on the longitudinal axis in order to mount it. Then, you will see another aperture scale with the actual effective apertures marked (on what was formerly the bottom of the lens).
So, Canon made the external meter work correctly!

 

[bmattock]

Though I've never had an FX, I do own some FT, TL, FTb, and FTbn models, and find them quite capable. I liken the FT to a Nikkormat. I'm not sure I'd care for that external meter mount. There is no way to compensate for using telephoto lenses.

PF

I don't use long lenses on it, and I have a 1 degree sekonic if I did.