Are you "blowing off" Sigma and other lens makers? My APO 500mm f7.2 is stellar.
Although not as fast a new Canon 70 to 200 2.8L, early Vivitar Series 1 70 to 200 were as good or better than Canon, Nikon, or Minolta of the day. But in general I would avoid most 70s vintage zooms. Canon L primes in FD mount are on the expensive side, of course the longer the lens the more expensive they become. Tonkia, Sigma, Tamron made some pretty good lens, at about half the price of Canon glass. Personally for birding I would get a Canon AF EOS 1N, battery grip and a modern long zoom.
They made lots of film cameras in EOS mount, I can't see them ever going back to FD again. If they wanted a film camera, they could do an EOS body and market it with their current lenses, FD would be starting from scratch with another lens lineup. That doesn't really make commercial sense for Canon.If Canon picks up making film cameras again, I hope they will be FD mount, so the buyers can take advantage of what all is out there.
New users are going to want Auto Focus, that is not to say that Cosina could not make a bear bone FD mount body, maybe if Pentax's plans work out establishing that is a market for film cameras.
You can't mix EOS and FD lenses, as one is entirely mechanical and one is entirely electronic. There is no "universal mount" that will work. There was a 1.26 teleconverter made in the early 90's as a bodge to allow pros to use their FD telephoto lenses on EOS bodies, but it was stopped down metering and manual aperture control. It was really intended for the sports photographers to use their 300 and 400 F2.8's wide open, as the teleconverter only worked with the fast telephoto lenses.Yes, starting a new lineup would be expensive, but by allowing buyers to use existing FD lenses, with a new universal mount and kit lens, the high cost of new lenses is something that could be delayed, allowing new film users to focus on buying the new camera and use it straight off, and discover the joy of film, without the absurdly high cost of new "modern lenses" and Canon earns the loyalty of the new generation of analog shooters whom eventually enjoy older FD and new Canon lenses.
The FD system was only replaced due to a larger difficulty in putting AF into it, and patents for the mount itself were expiring. Just like the patens for the EOS/EF and Nikon F mounts expiring helped spring the new mirrorless mounts based on oder medium format mounts.You can't mix EOS and FD lenses, as one is entirely mechanical and one is entirely electronic. There is no "universal mount" that will work. There was a 1.26 teleconverter made in the early 90's as a bodge to allow pros to use their FD telephoto lenses on EOS bodies, but it was stopped down metering and manual aperture control. It was really intended for the sports photographers to use their 300 and 400 F2.8's wide open, as the teleconverter only worked with the fast telephoto lenses.
As it turned out scrapping FD was the right move, as it allowed Canon to dominate the sports and journalism markets in the late 90's and 2000's in the way Nikon did previously in the 80's and into the 90's.
The FD ship sailed a long time ago, if there wasn't a market back when lots of pros used FD lenses, there isn't a market now. EOS lenses have been made for nearly 35 years, there is plenty in the used market. I would think that autofocus is also a significant feature for any new body, that battle was won by the early 90's. FD can't accommodate AF so it's really a dead end. Why would Canon of today care about people "loyal" to a system that was obsolete in the last century? What business case is there for Canon?
If Canon does introduce a film body, it only makes sense to make it EOS mount, as there is an ecosystem of lenses and accessories already produced that they can sell (and service). If that body is a sales failure, it's a much more modest investment than developing a new line of lenses as well. After all, Canon's goal is to sell more cameras and lenses and make a profit.
Hate auto focus.
That EOS 1N is a nice camera BUT i cannot do another camera with winder motors, unnedded weight and to much to go wrong. Trust me, one time having an advance motor short on is ENOUGH
Of all the cameras I own or have owned, the most reliable are the pro level AF bodies. Nikon F4, Minolta 9Xi, 800si, 9, 7, and Pentax SF1 and PZ are well built, much more reliable than my now 40 year old all mechanical bodies. Even my Spotmatic's meter is getting dodgy. The price of a EOS1N or 1V and one or two long modern zooms, like a 150 to 500 is still much less than a FTb and 3 or 4, FT L glass primes, to get motor drive speed you need a F1 or F1New with motor drive which adds weight. An EOS 1N or V can be lightened by not adding the battery grip. I shoot wildlife, some birds and I don't think I could without a motor drive.
If there were any patents of the mount ( I have not done a search to see if there ever were), they would have expired long before the EOS mount came along. A major stumbling block in addition to AF was the relatively narrow throat size. Canon wanted to develop faster lenses, like the 50 F1.0 and that couldn't be done with the FD mount.The FD system was only replaced due to a larger difficulty in putting AF into it, and patents for the mount itself were expiring. Just like the patens for the EOS/EF and Nikon F mounts expiring helped spring the new mirrorless mounts based on oder medium format mounts.
Thing is, the FD mount is still good. It merely requires a person to have mental power to turn a dial to focus. Its NOT that hard.
YOu seriously need a motor drive to shoot birds? Thats embarressing, I have knocked out a roll of film with my lil Ftb N QL in 2 or 3 minutes. on the birdies. MORE then fast enough, and in some cases i have to slow DOWN to do the job properly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?