Canon f1n vrs Canon New f1

[benjiboy]

The laser mat screen upgrade is that a Canon fitting or aftermarket

Canon brought out laser cut screens with the F1n they all have the "L" prefix on them before the type
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-F-1...045765?hash=item4b1792d445:g:~VIAAOSwY3BZGg9X

 

[flavio81]

It is confusing.

First generation = F-1
Second generation (actually a tweak) = F-1n (small n)
Third generation (brand new camera) = F-1N (capitol N), or New F-1.

Jim B.

But to be fair, Canon didn't invent the "F-1N" moniker. That camera was always(?) called "Canon New F-1" on the advertisements, user manuals and boxes.

 

[GarageBoy]

F2s is CDs with a 2 led display
F2sb is SBC with 3 led display
F2as is an ai coupled sb

 

[benjiboy]

But to be fair, Canon didn't invent the "F-1N" moniker. That camera was always(?) called "Canon New F-1" on the advertisements, user manuals and boxes.

That's true Flavio, but these are the generally accepted descriptions amongst F1 users nowadays.

 

[fstop]

F2s is CDs with a 2 led display
F2sb is SBC with 3 led display
F2as is an ai coupled sb

WTF does that have to do with Canon?

 

[Larry the sailor]

Just got my F-1N back from a repair/CLA. It is a joy to use.

 

[Les Sarile]

The generally accepted designation of the improved version of the original F1 is F1n,(lower case n). and the New F1 F1N (upper case N).

This is probably a continuation of the designation "N" used by Canon with their updated FTb-N in 1973 -> http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film87.html

That's true Flavio, but these are the generally accepted descriptions amongst F1 users nowadays.

No doubt there are localized pockets of resistance . . .

Incidentally, none of the instruction manuals - and the brochures I have for these, identify even Canons "N" or "NEW" designation and of course none of the bodies have these designations on them.

BTW, there was even yet another variation called the F-1 High Speed Motor Drive Camera -> http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film82.html

I wonder why Canon didn't just continue the use of Canonflex instead of using the "F-1" designation then stalling there . . .

 

[benjiboy]

This is probably a continuation of the designation "N" used by Canon with their updated FTb-N in 1973 -> http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film87.html



No doubt there are localized pockets of resistance . . .

Incidentally, none of the instruction manuals - and the brochures I have for these, identify even Canons "N" or "NEW" designation and of course none of the bodies have these designations on them.

BTW, there was even yet another variation called the F-1 High Speed Motor Drive Camera -> http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film82.html

I wonder why Canon didn't just continue the use of Canonflex instead of using the "F-1" designation then stalling there . . .

This is all true, it's just "custom and practice".

 

[cooltouch]

With regard to F-1 (and FTb) designations, what you have is a combination of a user base and marketplace at work. It may be a bit subtle for some people, but it is more elegant in its simplicity to refer to the two versions of the early F-1 as the F-1 and F-1n and the New F-1 as the F-1N. And with the FTb, the lower case 'n' was also used because it represented an update rather than a new model. These naming conventions have been around for at least as long as I've owned FTbs and F-1s, which goes back almost 35 years now.

The Canonflex used the "R" lenses, which were forerunners to the FL lenses. So Canon had put the Canonflex name to bed prior even to FL lenses. I'm guessing that Canon had no interest in resurrecting the name for the FD line.

Canon also made two high-speed F-1s. Here's the other one:
http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film111.html

I've seen F-1HS used to designate a high-speed model, but since there are two of them, I've never been clear as to which was being referred to without having to dig deeper.

 

[blockend]

There used to be a Dutch clothing retailer in the U.K called C & A where my wife used to buy her underwear, and she could always check the label on her panties to she had them on the right way round

I didn't know they were Dutch. I spent half my childhood accompanying my mother and sister round the clothing department of C&A modes. How can two women look at one rail of clothing for half an hour (and do the same for an entire department store)?

 

[MattKing]

I didn't know they were Dutch. I spent half my childhood accompanying my mother and sister round the clothing department of C&A modes. How can two women look at one rail of clothing for half an hour (and do the same for an entire department store)

Did you ever take them along when you looked at _________ (fill in the blank) at your local camera store?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I always call mine the "New F-1" to avoid confusion.

I like the improved interchangeable screens and metering options on the New F-1. I usually use the SB (spot metering with the split-image rangefinder spot) or SK (spot metering, bright laser matte optimized for long lenses).

Nowadays, they're all relatively cheap, so it's not so hard to own multiple FD bodies. The main attraction of the F-1 and F-1n, or the EF is the mirror lockup, but that said, even with my FD 600/4.5, I didn't see any difference in resolution when I tested it using an EF with MLU and my New F-1 some years ago, so I eventually sold the EF body. Canon claimed that the improved mirror vibration damping mechanism of the New F-1 made MLU unnecessary, but I still wouldn't mind having the option.

 

[cooltouch]

What sold me on MLU back when I was still using A-series Canons was an article I read in Modern Photography magazine back in about 1984 or so. They tested the New F-1 against a Canon with MLU, sorry I don't recall which one, shooting at a subject at 1/60 second. I don't recall any more specifics than that. But the images told the tale. The F-1's was noticeably degraded due to camera shake, whereas the Canon with MLU's was clear. Incidentally, about that same time -- might have even been the same issue, in fact, MP also published a brief article on the FTb. MLU was mentioned. Within a month, I owned one, and quickly became enamored of it.

What I can really appreciate about the New F-1 is the ability to customize it to one's specific liking, mostly by selecting the right focusing screen. Well, adding a motor drive or wnder gives you shutter priority, but that's a minor thing for me. Of course, when I bought my F-1N, I also bought the focusing screen I wanted -- a Partial Matte (I don't recall the designation for it). This also happens to be the configuration I use with my old F-1 -- a configuration I've used for many years. So I've set up my New F-1 to behave as close as is possible to my old one. Go figure.

 

[GarageBoy]

WTF does that have to do with Canon?

Someone asked further up the thread

 

[benjiboy]

I always call mine the "New F-1" to avoid confusion.

I like the improved interchangeable screens and metering options on the New F-1. I usually use the SB (spot metering with the split-image rangefinder spot) or SK (spot metering, bright laser matte optimized for long lenses).

Nowadays, they're all relatively cheap, so it's not so hard to own multiple FD bodies. The main attraction of the F-1 and F-1n, or the EF is the mirror lockup, but that said, even with my FD 600/4.5, I didn't see any difference in resolution when I tested it using an EF with MLU and my New F-1 some years ago, so I eventually sold the EF body. Canon claimed that the improved mirror vibration damping mechanism of the New F-1 made MLU unnecessary, but I still wouldn't mind having the option.

I have a SE spot screen for my New F1's but use it very rarely because ironically David you have to be very careful where you point it if you see what I meen. For my photography I generally use the A ( averaging centre weighted) or the P (partial) metering pattern screens, although I always carry all three.

 

[benjiboy]

I didn't know they were Dutch. I spent half my childhood accompanying my mother and sister round the clothing department of C&A modes. How can two women look at one rail of clothing for half an hour (and do the same for an entire department store)?

The company has been in business in Holland since the seventeenth century.

 

[flavio81]

What sold me on MLU back when I was still using A-series Canons was an article I read in Modern Photography magazine back in about 1984 or so. They tested the New F-1 against a Canon with MLU, sorry I don't recall which one, shooting at a subject at 1/60 second. I don't recall any more specifics than that. But the images told the tale. The F-1's was noticeably degraded due to camera shake, whereas the Canon with MLU's was clear.

Circumstances should be considered. Also, mirror bounce has a different effect with certain shutter speeds... So both David Goldfarb & you can be right: at 1/250 and 1/4 for example there could be zero effect, but at 1/60 and 1/30, max effect.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Circumstances should be considered. Also, mirror bounce has a different effect with certain shutter speeds... So both David Goldfarb & you can be right: at 1/250 and 1/4 for example there could be zero effect, but at 1/60 and 1/30, max effect.

This is true, but I also recall testing it at the relevant speeds--around 1/15-1/60 sec.--and it didn't make a difference for me. There are other factors like the condition of the camera and the tripod system that could also be important.

As for in-camera spot metering, indeed, you've got to be careful where you point the spot, but eventually you can get in the habit of thinking where you want to place the exposure, metering, setting the exposure, and composing. I don't usually find it necessary to meter every shot. If there's a situation like moving clouds, I might have one setting for full sun and one for cloud cover or one for sun and one for shade, and then I can meter again if something else arises, and I get more consistent results than I would in any kind of auto mode or otherwise adjusting exposure for every shot.

 

[cooltouch]

Circumstances should be considered. Also, mirror bounce has a different effect with certain shutter speeds... So both David Goldfarb & you can be right: at 1/250 and 1/4 for example there could be zero effect, but at 1/60 and 1/30, max effect.

This is true, but I also recall testing it at the relevant speeds--around 1/15-1/60 sec.--and it didn't make a difference for me. There are other factors like the condition of the camera and the tripod system that could also be important.

Flavio makes a point I hadn't considered, but it makes a certain amount of sense. However, knowing Canon and the amount of funds they must have spent on this improved mirror dampening system in the New F-1, it seems to me they would have thoroughly tested it before putting it into production. Which makes me wonder if MP happened across a weak copy, or if indeed Canon gave mere lip service to the issue, assuming that it simply wouldn't matter to most users. I am glad to read, however, that David's F-1N handles the slower speeds without problem. I suppose I should put my own F-1N through the same paces. I can certainly put together focal lengths of 600mm and even 1200mm without problems, so I should be able to see for myself. I think I'll do it, using the same roll of film with both F-1n (with MLU) and F-1N.

As for in-camera spot metering, indeed, you've got to be careful where you point the spot, but eventually you can get in the habit of thinking where you want to place the exposure, metering, setting the exposure, and composing. I don't usually find it necessary to meter every shot. If there's a situation like moving clouds, I might have one setting for full sun and one for cloud cover or one for sun and one for shade, and then I can meter again if something else arises, and I get more consistent results than I would in any kind of auto mode or otherwise adjusting exposure for every shot.

This makes a good deal of sense, certainly, and is something I do when occasion warrants, but I've got this old habit of keeping sight of the needle and lollipop out of the corner of my eye and a firm grip on the aperture ring to adjust as needed. But if I were shooting with a Spot focusing screen, I think the entire process would slow down for me, as I would feel compelled to more carefully evaluate the exposure for any given scene. One of the reasons why I prefer Partial is I find I can quickly average a scene's exposure and have good results much more often than not.

 

[Les Sarile]

Just got my F-1N back from a repair/CLA. It is a joy to use.

This "F-1N" designation - according to Canon, makes this the updated original F-1. However, local convention suggests this is the 1981 model that Canon designates the New F-1. So which is it . . .

 

[Larry the sailor]

It is the "New" F-1.
the date code shows it to have been in 1984 I think.

 

[benjiboy]

This is true, but I also recall testing it at the relevant speeds--around 1/15-1/60 sec.--and it didn't make a difference for me. There are other factors like the condition of the camera and the tripod system that could also be important.

As for in-camera spot metering, indeed, you've got to be careful where you point the spot, but eventually you can get in the habit of thinking where you want to place the exposure, metering, setting the exposure, and composing. I don't usually find it necessary to meter every shot. If there's a situation like moving clouds, I might have one setting for full sun and one for cloud cover or one for sun and one for shade, and then I can meter again if something else arises, and I get more consistent results than I would in any kind of auto mode or otherwise adjusting exposure for every shot.

The Canon Corporation said that they omitted mirror lock in the New F1 and T90 because the mirror was so well damped in was unnecessary.

 

[benjiboy]

I've been using New F1's for about thirty years and it's only in the last year or so I bought an F1n and I was so impressed with it I bought another one, the build quality on all F1's is like M series Leicas and I was very fortunate to find two F1n's that are in such mint condition at a very reasonable price, they have certainly not had professional use, and it's hard to believe they are nearly forty years old.