So despite my best efforts to keep all of my 35mm lenses adaptable between FD and EF mount, I seem to have allowed myself to acquire a few EF-mount only lenses for the camera that dare not speak its name on APUG, because interchangeable mounts weren't an option, and I'd like to get an EF mount film body to go with them. I like the 1-series bodies in general, but I shoot pretty much exclusively in manual mode with manual focus and spot metering, and that's true for my New F-1 as well as that other camera. So autofocus performance isn't important for me (I don't even own any autofocus lenses), but ruggedness, basic camera features, and short lag time are, so I've been thinking of getting a 1N RS, but I've also considered a 1v. The main attraction of the 1v would be that it would be a newer camera, and I suppose I'm a bit concerned about viewfinder light loss from the pellicle mirror of the RS, but I'm also attracted to the more solid built-in motor drive of the RS and the low shutter lag of a pellicle mirror camera. A 1N RS would also be about half the price of a second hand 1v, and since I don't shoot a lot of 35mm, it's a consideration. I mainly want the option of putting some Tri-X behind my Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar ZE, and to have the option of shooting film with my 45/2.8 TS-E, but I want a body suited to (manual focus) bird photography, should I at some point decide to replace my FD 600/4 with an EOS bird lens. Can any of the EOS film shooters see any glaring flaw in my reasoning for leaning more toward a 1N RS as opposed to a 1v?