Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,929   Posts: 1,522,165   Online: 1030
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Nikon cornered the hire market, meaning professionals could borrow equipment they needed, often on credit, from their local shop. Canon were late getting into that game. I never got the sense of Canon having an ongoing pro heritage, as Nikon had with their F series, until the EOS 1 cameras. Perhaps the UK market in the 70s differed from others, but the only F1 owners I knew were keen amateurs or semi-pros.
    No doubt the U.S. market and England were/are different. When Canon dropped Bell & Howell as their U.S. distributor in 1971 and established Canon, USA, they took the gloves off. They aggressively pursued the pro market and were successful in getting their foot in the door. They especially hit the press photography crowd and it wasn't unusual to see F-1's in the hands of young pro's. It helped that they had some very unique lenses that Nikon don't have either (fluorite lenses and aspherics). One picture, taken with the-then new 300mm F2.8 FL-F telephoto back in 1973 or so, really made people sit up and take notice. A photographer, sitting in a balcony and looking down at Henry Kissinger, used this lens to photograph, in great detail, the notes he was speaking from. What was noteworthy was that the shot was made at F2.8. I still remember seeing this pic on the front page of some newspaper. This pic actually caused a minor security furor that had people asking how a press photographer could so easily photograph secret documents. Modern Photography even had an article on how the photographer took the pic. Talk about free advertising.

    Again, you have to start someplace to establish your professional creds, and the F-1 did just that.

    Jim B.
    Last edited by Mackinaw; 03-22-2014 at 12:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799
    I forgot that the original Pellix came out about eleven months before the FT QL. It is likely that the later Pellix QL sold better. I don't think Canon users "put novelty avove reliablity." While I generally prefer the breech loch FD enses to the New FD ones, some lenses like the 24/2 New FD were only sold in New FD form. Many of the later Nikon AI and AIS lenses were also less sturdy mechanicaly than similar pre-AI lenses. I don't think Canon's mount converters were ever big sellers. Half of Canon's production must be in my collection now. Canon did not stop making FD bodies in 1987 when the EOS cameras came out. The T90 was available for a while, the T-60 came out in 1990 and the F-1N was available new until 1996. I know the T-60 was really made by Cosina and that many people don't consider it a real Canon product but it does fit FD lenses if you can find one of the bodies which works. I have plenty of Canon FL and FD lenses and also plenty of manual focus Nikkors. It is possible to enjoy using both lines and to get good results from both. I will sometimes use a 35/2.8 PC Nikkor on an F-1 with an adapter.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by dynachrome View Post
    It is possible to enjoy using both lines and to get good results from both.
    I agree. There was never any point in camera tribalism, and even less this long after the event.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    701
    Laughing hard at this
    "It's one of great ironies that almost any lens can be adapted for use on a modern Canon digital camera without optical compromises, except older Canons"

    No its not Ironic; its the standard operating procedure for that company. They intentionally went out of their way to ensure that the EOS mount was totally incompatible with any FD mount. With just a little effort, the customer in mind and just less of the money grubbing greediness of Canon they could have made the mount dimensions close enough to work. I'm still pissed for the very few pros that I knew who were furious. You'd be too if you just took delivery in 1987 on a new FD 400mm f/2.8 after waiting 2 1/2 years to get it AND had an 800mm f/5.6. THat guy sold those for nothing just to switch to Nikon.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    678
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    That "reserved" pin is found on the very first FD lenses still with chromed filterring up to models from the 80s, maybe even to the very last model.

    In literature I got there is no explanation other than for possible future use. On the net I only found one source, hinting at an indicator of the focal lenght of the lens, staggered in three steps: short, medium and long.
    Even if that would be true, it does not make sense to me.
    What use would that information have had at all? More so as early as 1971?

    In the latest FD-cameras there were AE-programs for those different focal lengths-groups. Did one have such in mind as early as at the start of the FD-range? Hard to believe.
    Is it perhaps similar to Nikon's focal length ridge?: http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/Fmm.htm

  6. #16
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,343
    Good Point.

    Better link, explaining the use of that ridge:
    http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/FLIR.htm

    It does what I thought of in that quote. BUT much later.
    So the question remains whether Canon had such indicator in mind for focal length dependand Setting of shutter speed.
    AND why they did not employ it at their T-models...

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799
    The T models, with the exception of the T90, were based on the chasis of the Snappy models. They were a less expensively made line than the A series. The T70 is the most interesting of these with the exception of the T90. The T90 looks like the later EOS cameras and was the only FD mount model to have TTL flash metering. It was missing interchangeable finders and mirror lock-up. If the EOS models had not been so close to being introduced and if Canon had made a more advanced manual focus SLR then the reserved pin might have been put to some use. Minolta added a pin to a small number of manual focus MD lenses to allow them to work with the focus confirmation of the X-600. The X-600 was something of a test bed and the Maxxum 7000 program must have been well under way by the time it came out in 1983.

  8. #18
    David Goldstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Little Rock
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    58
    Images
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    They survived because by that point their core market was amateur purchasers, who put novelty above reliability and build quality, and basically wanted the next big thing.
    As someone that has shot the Canon FD system since 1976, I find your characterization of Canon users moderately offensive and to say the least, inaccurate.
    --
    David

  9. #19
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,343
    The A-1 should have been the first camera to make use of that pin, I guess

    The AE-1 Program should have been the next camera. But that would have made changes necessary at the mirror box against its predecessor AE-1, but most likely the box of a A-1 with that pin feeler would fit.

    The next model should have been the T-70, but that did not even get a DOF-button. Though I guess a focal length indicator would be even more useful for the intended buyer.

    With the T-90 as directed to a photographically better educated buyer, the choice between several program setting may be more useful than that focal length recognition coupled to its universal program setting.
    Last edited by AgX; 03-27-2014 at 04:11 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin