No love here for old Canon SLRs?

[dogberryjr]

You should have been around back in 1986 or 1987 when the FD to EOS switch was announced. The angst and consternation among many die-hard Canon loyalists was something never seen before or since.

This is why they call me 'Lucky'—my awesome sense of timing! I bought my T70 in May of 1986, completely oblivious to the coming abandonment. It's probably just as well though, as I had no funds in those years anyway. Hmm . . . kinda like now.

The bright side is that I spent the 80s coveting an F1N which I could never afford, and now I have THREE!

 

[Mackinaw]

.......The build quality of FL lenses seems superior in fact to their FD lenses.

FDn lenses (note the small "n"), yes, FL lenses are better built, but it's hard to beat the build quality of early FD lenses, especially the chrome-nose. They were built for the F-1 and it shows. Very robust construction.

Jim B.

 

[raid]

That is a good point, Jim. I have the F1N and also one F1n that I used for very long exposures with the mirror locked up.

 

[pagpow]

The epoch of their lens and body build quality was when the FD lenses had the bright chrome bayonet nose.

Have no interest in keeping other Canon lovers from their loves, but the F series were very attractive, heavy to steady the shot, durable (I was sold one, my first, when the salesman showed it's hardiness by almost using it as a hammer on the counter). Hard not to like the aesthetics of the old F-1, particularly compared to the klutzy Nikon F, not to like it's limited area metering in place of center-weighted, its in-camera meter instead of add on, the ability to change screens w/o readjusting meter, ability to change finders w/o losing metering.

Oh, and did I say I like how they looked as well as how they shot?

I always figured we didn't see a lot of Canon FD love expressed here was cuz we didn't want prices to go up.

The A and T series were competent, but never challenged my F series love.

 

[dtcls100]

Have used Canon SLRs in the past (A series), but never liked them. Basically, their design was targeted more for mass market tastes than some other brands. Canon led the way -- beginning with the AE-1 with the cheapening of camera construction with the extensive use of plastics. With the A-1, they added tons of bells and whistles, but failed to pay attention to basic and more important details -- like the absence of a metered manual mode, mediocre viewfinders, that the camera shutter release really sucks (stiff push required, noticeable shutter lag) and the annoying A-series shutter squeal. Sure, you can get very good pictures out of them -- like any other decent SLR brand, but they just don't feel or handle nearly as well as something like an Olympus OM, if you've had a decent amount of experience handling both. Basically, Canon SLRs represent the triumph of technological features over the quality of core camera features -- like a great viewfinder and smooth shutter release. Compare a Canon SLR to an Olympus OM SLR side by side in these regards and you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[Mackinaw]

.......Sure, you can get very good pictures out of them -- like any other decent SLR brand, but they just don't feel or handle nearly as well as something like an Olympus OM, if you've had a decent amount of experience handling both. Basically, Canon SLRs represent the triumph of technological features over the quality of core camera features -- like a great viewfinder and smooth shutter release. Compare a Canon SLR to an Olympus OM SLR side by side in these regards and you'll know what I'm talking about.

As much as I dislike A-series Canons, they were an phenomenal sales success that put Canon on solid financial ground and allowed them to become the company we see today. Olympus on the other hand, introduced a radically new line of cameras with the OM-series back in 1973, and then, inexplicably, let them die on the vine. I find it interesting that most pro-Olympus fans in 2011 sing the praises of yesterday's OM cameras, not today's current digital offerings.

Except me, I much prefer an Olympus micro 4/3rds camera to an OM.

Jim B.

 

[raid]

I used to have the F1n with the huge motor drive and external battery pack with 8 or 12 batteries. It was very challenging for my wrists.

 

[mfunnell]

Have used Canon SLRs in the past (A series), but never liked them. Basically, their design was targeted more for mass market tastes than some other brands. Canon led the way -- beginning with the AE-1 with the cheapening of camera construction with the extensive use of plastics. With the A-1, they added tons of bells and whistles, but failed to pay attention to basic and more important details -- like the absence of a metered manual mode, mediocre viewfinders, that the camera shutter release really sucks (stiff push required, noticeable shutter lag) and the annoying A-series shutter squeal. Sure, you can get very good pictures out of them -- like any other decent SLR brand, but they just don't feel or handle nearly as well as something like an Olympus OM, if you've had a decent amount of experience handling both. Basically, Canon SLRs represent the triumph of technological features over the quality of core camera features -- like a great viewfinder and smooth shutter release. Compare a Canon SLR to an Olympus OM SLR side by side in these regards and you'll know what I'm talking about. [my emphasis]

Well, that's telling it as you see it! I certainly have no problems with that - it's the sort of reaction I thought I might get from the original post. The only quibble I have is the (emphasised) point about metered manual mode. I have no personal experience of the A-1 but it struck me as odd.

It conflicts with notes here:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/a1/html/index2.htm

In operation, all you have to do to obtain manual control is disengage the lens aperture ring from the "A" mark. Use this ring to set the aperture. The aperture the camera would normally have selected appears in the viewfinder after you have selected a shutter speed using the AT Dial with, of course, the AE Mode Selector on Tv. You can get proper exposure with this aperture, or rely on your own experience

I know, I know - I read it on the internet, so it must be true. But still, it makes more sense to me than not having a metered manual mode.

As it happens I avoided the A series cameras when deciding to have a closer look at Canon's FD mount stuff. That's mostly because I'm somewhat dubious about the longevity of some of the electronic and electromechanical bits of the cameras - especially if they've had long periods of disuse. That's one of the reasons I went with the New F-1 (which I'd never have afforded back in these cameras' heyday).

...Mike

 

[Keith]

The *only* Canon that grabbed my heart the minute I saw it is the Canon P. That is one beautiful and fun to use RF camera.

None of the other rise above the word "utilitarian," the TAXI analogy is apt.

My wife on the other hand, who has no regard of the beauty of a gear, likes her Canon DSLRs. Because to her, those are just tools, that happen to produce good enough results for her part-time photo shoot gigs, have a high resale value, and lots of repair facilities. No less, no more.

I need to clarify my taxi analogy here!

A taxi will get you wherever you need to go ... however, you will neither cherish nor especially remember the journey.

😀

 

[dmc]

So about 6 years ago I won a Canon FTQL with a 50mm Canon FL f1.4 lens on the famous online bidding war site. I had never used a Canon of any kind before (assuming we don't count .357 Magnums), even though I've been shooting for 45+ years. I threw the camera in the saddlebag of my bike and took off on a ten day ride through Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas. When I got back I souped my film and was absolutely stunned by the quality of the photos I had taken. This from a 1966 stop-down metered camera. While I shoot 90% rangefinder now, I still drag out that old boat anchor when I really want the shot to count. Go figure.

 

[Contarama]

I would love to have a Canon F1 with 55 aspherical to sit next to my Nikon F2 with 105. Two of the meanest looking SLRs ever made IMHO... 🙂

 

[hugivza]

A bit late on this thread, but I am currently in the middle of Borneo. I still have my original F1 with the Lake Placid 1980 logo - I bought it in Best Products in Houston for $364 with a 50mm 1.4 whilst living in the US. I have another mint F1, and a never been used F1n (seemed like a good idea at the time), together with bunch of FD lenses which I no longer use, but never seemed to be able to part with. I have just moved to live in Singapore which means that everything has to be in hot cabinets because of the humidity - the domestic management is not too impressed.

 

[kermaier]

The A-1 absolutely does have metered manual mode. It's an excellent camera, even if built using lighter weight materials than the F-1. I have both, and if you don't need the vast system of interchangeable accessories that the F-1 offers, then the A-1 has nothing to apologize for.
Ari

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This thread needs some pictures in it.

I love my Canon F1 and EF SO MUCH that I put them in two of my Nikon Leather cases.

 

[Maiku]

I agree the Canon FD cameras get the bum rap. I also believe the FL and FD lenses get the bum rap. Here are few photos from my 5$, 10$ and 20$ lenses. If you can tell me a better photo quality to price ratio please let me know.

 

[Maiku]

Some more photos in color

 

[Maiku]

Some more in BW

 

[shadowfox]

Concerning the main gist of the OP's topic, I think there's less love around here for Canon SLRs simply due to photog cultural history: Mostly for marketing/brand-imagery reasons, Nikon have been more associated with photojournalists and documentary photographers, while Canon have identified more with sports and wildlife photographers. Since rangefinders are decidedly the province of the former, an RF-oriented forum would naturally tilt Nikon in its SLR digressions.

This does not explain why Olympus and Contax are popular here. 🙂

 

[tapesonthefloor]

I was given a T70 a couple years ago, and insist on wringing as much life out of old equipment as possible. I think it's a hard camera to love—it's all cold, military-esque lines, and early 80s automation—but I've certainly found it an easy camera to get along with. I write a bit about it here, which is my short answer to "where's the Canon love?"

Anyway, I use it a bunch because my 50mm f/1.4 is still the fastest glass I own. It lets me do occasionally magical things.


Canon T70 (1984) by tapesonthefloor, on Flickr

 

[raid]

This does not explain why Olympus and Contax are popular here. 🙂

Contax: Zeiss lenses
Olympus: small camera bodies

Canon has often the larger sized cameras, and they use Canon FD lenses for many years. They are not Zeiss lenses.