No love here for old Canon SLRs?

Well, I'm a fan, that's for sure. My first SLR was a T70, which I still have. I love their affordability now, caused by the FD to EF shift, and have trouble passing one up. The 55 1.2 AL is an amazing lens, but there are a bunch of other great FD lenses. Anyway, plenty of love here.
 
Canon jumped the shark with the "A" and "T" series cameras. They may have been good cameras and made the company a lot of money, but, compared to the older "F" style cameras, they looked and felt cheap.

Jim B.
 
Last edited:
I always had a problem with backwards compatibility VS. Nikon. The change from FL/FD to EOS leaves something to be desired when you consider the continuity of F mount from '59 forward. They made some really great manual focus SLRs though.. the F-1 and A-1 coming to mind.
 
Back in 1970/71, when I was looking for a "real" camera, I poured over the PX catalog looking for the best camera for the best money. Nikon looked good, but I thought Canon was making a point of selling accessories for what others were offering with their cameras. Both were more expensive than what I wanted to pay, but I was totally turned off to even thinking about the Canon. I ended up with a Yashica TL Super with a Yashinon lens. Say what you want, that was a fine camera and good lens. Sort of the poor man's Nikon in M42 mount.

I moved on to Fujicas and in the mid-70s, when my command chose Canon AE-1 cameras and lenses, I was miffed and highly critical. They hadn't even asked my opinion!! The very idea. But that had to be the most agent-proof camera you can imagine. It held up to abuse and was easy to learn how to use. Canon glass was well respected as well. Many good crime scene photos were taken with those cameras. I was wrong. But still don't want to own/use one myself.

I still prefer Fujica, Yashica/Contax for my personal SLR use. I would also prefer to use Fujinon or Contax glass, but in fact, have glass from all over the place including Fuji and Contax.

But I don't hate Canon, really, I don't. :p
 
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'm not sure why Canon doesn't get the respect it should rightfully deserves but I suspect had something to do with their mechanical SLRs in the late 60's being stop down metering like the Pentax and several others. Cameras like Nikon and Minolta were full aperture metering from the start making them more popular. By the early 70's Canon caught up with a camera system that in many respects exceeded Nikon in specs and had SLRs in 3 pricepoints unlike Nikon that had only 2. They also had some killer optics like fluorite teles and high speed aspherics that were incredible optics. However by then Nikon was firmly established as king. By the late 70's Canon came out with their electronic cameras that used more plastic and while groundbreaking, lost on perceived reliability since electronic cameras had yet to really prove themselves. The thing about Canon is that they always came out with new models at about twice the frequency of other makers even if some were only minor tweaks. I think to their detriment, Canon seemed to be ahead of other companies in economizing lens construction by using more plastic in their FD lenses by the late 70's and beyond except the more expensive optics. The same holds today with the lens lineup. The epoch of their lens and body build quality was when the FD lenses had the bright chrome bayonet nose.
 
Last edited:
My first real camera was a Canon AE-1 P with 50/1.8 lens, and I've loved Canon SLRs ever since. At its peak around 2004, my kit included an A-1 and 3 F-1N bodies, with a bunch of accessories (power winders, IR remote release, flashes) collection of great prime lenses (24/1.4L, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L, 85/1.8, 85/1.2L, 135/2.8, 135/2, 200/2.8) and one zoom (35-105/3.5 2-touch). All were wonderfully built and performing pieces of equipment that never failed me. My favorites were the 3 fast L lenses -- heavy, but superbly built and great image quality.

I still have the 4 bodies, some accessories and 50/1.2L, 50/1.4, 50/1.4 SSC, 35/2 and 28/2 lenses, having sold off the rest of the lenses (alas, before m4/3 brought prices back up :bang: ). But I haven't used any of it in several years, since I went to digital for everything I used to do with 35mm film. Those F-1N bodies are still tough enough to pound nails (pretty much literally), with a great system of interchangeable finders and focus screens. The real shame is that the lenses will never work on an EOS mount camera -- it would be a blast to put the $350 50/1.2L on a 5D instead of springing for a $1500 EF version....

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.

I've used Nikons as well, and I can say there's no practical difference -- at a given product-line level -- between Canon and Nikon for feature set, build quality, optical quality or ergonomics. You can find hell and heaven at (respectively) the low end and high end of both brands' offerings.

::Ari
 
Memory Lane

Memory Lane

I started with a Canon FTb in the early 70's and eventually worked up to a original F1 and two of the F1N cameras. They were workhorses and they never let me down no matter what conditions I subjected them to. The lenses were terrific also because at one time I owned the 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2L,200mm f2.8, 300mm f2.8Fluorite,400mm f4.5, 400mm f2.8L and the 600mm f4.5. Eventually the conversion to EOS cameras was inevitable but still have fond memories of those early cameras. Recently re-aquired a FTb body and am thinking about the 85 F1.2 as a good pairing.
 
I doubt that Canon's specs vs. other makers - at the time when new - matter much to today's potential buyers who are often camera/photo hobbyists. these cameras are all ancient by todays standars.
 
You could say that about any camera from that period. The specs from current Leica film bodies are also ancient by todays standards but they continue to attract premium prices. The older Canons from the late 60's to mid 70's are as well made as their early rfs and some of the optics are so good from the FL series that optical design remained unchanged like the 50/1.4. I think all Japanese film cameras have taken a big hit due to the popularity of digital and many except for a few Nikon and Canons models have bit the dust from lack of demand.
 
awilder said:
You could say that about any camera from that period. The specs from current Leica film bodies are also ancient by todays standards but they continue to attract premium prices. The older Canons from the late 60's to mid 70's are as well made as their early rfs and some of the optics are so good from the FL series that optical design remained unchanged like the 50/1.4. I think all Japanese film cameras have taken a big hit due to the popularity of digital and many except for a few Nikon and Canons models have bit the dust from lack of demand.
Click to expand...

I would have said Nikon and Olympus myself ...
 
I like Canon stuff. I've got an F1n, an EOS650 and a 5D. Use them all depending on mood - the EOS650 has been getting a fair bit of use lately. Mind you, I've got Olympus film and digital also and they also get used as the mood takes me. If I had to choose one 35mm film camera it would be the F1n paired with the 5D for digital. Fortunately I don't have to choose :)
 
My first camera was a T70 received as a gift in 1984. Eventually sold it and went through all sorts of SLR's since. I think it is an under rated camera if a bit quirky. The viewfinder is superb and the FD lenses are more than acceptable for the most part. I have come full circle and picked one up for my daughter - T70, 50/1.8 and dedicated flash for $15. What's not to love?
 
My first camera purchase was a Canon AE-1 from 1981. It was my first love. Favourite lens on it is the 55mm f1.2 SSC. Only stopped using it last year when I bought my second camera - an RF.
 
I have Canon 1N and A2E myself. Sometimes I like to shoot with them. I like the ergonomics more than Nikon and definitely Olympus. I absolutely love the eye focusing. I sold the Canon glass I had along with my Canon 7D and now I am using my R lenses on them. Canon makes really good cameras, but looks like they never made it to Sidney :p
Regards,
b.
 
My mentor once told a friend that used Canons:

"It's okay, God will forgive you".:)

But, really I have always liked the Canon AE-1 and the more expensive film cameras. The digital cameras just don't feel right to this 40-year Nikon user.
 
fdigital said:
As far as stuffing around their user base is concerned - nikon is just as bad as canon dropping the FD mount.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I certainly have a soft spot for Canons old FL mount cameras and lenses. Until m4/3 format came along the FL lenses could not be used on any standard digital camera so their prices were pretty low. But the lenses are well made and capable. I especialy like their breech lock mounting system which works well and is very secure. The build quality of FL lenses seems superior in fact to their FD lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom