Canon "New" F-1N!

[cooltouch]

This may be Canon's recommendation, but I consider it to be wrong-headed thinking if one is shooting slides. Ask yourself why it was, then, that Nikon decided to go with a tighter 80/20 metering pattern (a departure from their old standard 60/40 pattern) with the F3. I believe it had to do with the F3's Aperture priority mode, which the F-1 with AE Finder shares. The F-1's partial screen is Canon's version of this tight pattern found with the F3.

I've only recently acquired an F-1N, but back in my slide-shooting days, I had an F3 and, after trying the A mode with a roll of slides, doing the sort of photography I usually do, I found that every single one of them was correctly exposed. It was then I became a believer in the 80/20 pattern and no longer hesitated using the A mode when I was out and about with that camera. Canon is probably assuming print film is being used, in which case the A pattern may suffice -- but even then I'd disagree based on my own experiences with Canon's centerweighted averaging pattern in its other cameras. Underexposure tends to be a real problem with Canon's centerweighted pattern because it picks up extraneous light sources too easily, and underexposure is death for print film.

 

[benjiboy]

This may be Canon's recommendation, but I consider it to be wrong-headed thinking if one is shooting slides. Ask yourself why it was, then, that Nikon decided to go with a tighter 80/20 metering pattern (a departure from their old standard 60/40 pattern) with the F3. I believe it had to do with the F3's Aperture priority mode, which the F-1 with AE Finder shares. The F-1's partial screen is Canon's version of this tight pattern found with the F3.

I've only recently acquired an F-1N, but back in my slide-shooting days, I had an F3 and, after trying the A mode with a roll of slides, doing the sort of photography I usually do, I found that every single one of them was correctly exposed. It was then I became a believer in the 80/20 pattern and no longer hesitated using the A mode when I was out and about with that camera. Canon is probably assuming print film is being used, in which case the A pattern may suffice -- but even then I'd disagree based on my own experiences with Canon's centerweighted averaging pattern in its other cameras. Underexposure tends to be a real problem with Canon's centerweighted pattern because it picks up extraneous light sources too easily, and underexposure is death for print film.

Have you ever actually shot any slides in the "A" mode with an A average screen with your F1-N ?.

 

[cooltouch]

No, because I don't own an "A" screen. I own only a "P" screen. This type of pattern has been my preference with Canon cameras for some 33 years. Wait a sec -- that's not quite right. The camera had an A screen in it when it arrived. First thing I did with it was buy a P screen, so the A screen is sitting in the P screen's box. Somewhere.

If Canon's A screen meters a scene in a different fashion than its A-series cameras meter a scene, such that it is somehow superior to the way the A-series meter a scene, then I'll shut up about it. But I've seen images of the pattern and it sure looks the same as that of the A-series to me.

 

[flavio81]

This may be Canon's recommendation, but I consider it to be wrong-headed thinking if one is shooting slides. Ask yourself why it was, then, that Nikon decided to go with a tighter 80/20 metering pattern (a departure from their old standard 60/40 pattern) with the F3. I believe it had to do with the F3's Aperture priority mode, which the F-1 with AE Finder shares. The F-1's partial screen is Canon's version of this tight pattern found with the F3.

I've only recently acquired an F-1N, but back in my slide-shooting days, I had an F3 and, after trying the A mode with a roll of slides, doing the sort of photography I usually do, I found that every single one of them was correctly exposed. It was then I became a believer in the 80/20 pattern and no longer hesitated using the A mode when I was out and about with that camera. Canon is probably assuming print film is being used, in which case the A pattern may suffice -- but even then I'd disagree based on my own experiences with Canon's centerweighted averaging pattern in its other cameras. Underexposure tends to be a real problem with Canon's centerweighted pattern because it picks up extraneous light sources too easily, and underexposure is death for print film.

Michael McCooltouch,

I had an F3 and i agree with what you say, the slides came out just fine.

But last trip I brought my Canon F-1N in centerweighted mode and the slides... came out perfectly fine.
Of course, i do "meter and recompose" as needed.
Just as I also did on the F3 as necessary -- meter and recompose.

I think you can get well exposed slides with any of these two screens, A or P.

 

[cooltouch]

Michael McCooltouch,

I had an F3 and i agree with what you say, the slides came out just fine.

But last trip I brought my Canon F-1N in centerweighted mode and the slides... came out perfectly fine.
Of course, i do "meter and recompose" as needed.
Just as I also did on the F3 as necessary -- meter and recompose.

I think you can get well exposed slides with any of these two screens, A or P.

Hehe, I like that nickname you gave me!

Just to be clear -- my main gripe for many years about Canon's centerweighted metering pattern is it isn't tight enough. Back when I first started shooting slides, I had numerous ones that were ruined because of severe underexposure due to extraneous light sources peeking somewhere into the frame. Even on the edges and corners. It was really annoying. But like you, once I recognized the problem, I would recompose and shoot with my A-1 and AE-1. But sometimes, in the heat of the moment, I was unaware of these pesky occurrences, and I'd get stung again.

When I picked up an FTb for the first time, I immediately saw how its pattern worked and realized it was the solution to my problems. And when I found out the F-1 used the same pattern, I knew I had to have one. So I eventually had two. These days I have three -- two F-1n's and one F-1N (w/AE Finder and Motor Drive FN). I got so used to that rectangular patch inside the FTb that I was able to do a sort of scene averaging with it to insure correct exposure -- almost like one does averaging with a spot meter. This sort of precision just isn't possible with an "A" screen.

 

[benjiboy]

It's "different strokes for different folks" that's why there are 32 screens to choose from, it's a versatile professional optical/ exposure system, some screens are especially for small aperture wide angle lenses, macro work, copying, or extreme telephoto lenses all with a choice of metering area, the whole point is you are not limited to one focusing screen that's fitted to the camera.

 

[cooltouch]

Got that right. That's why I refer to the New F-1 as being a modular system camera. It has so many configuration choices, you can set it up to your exact set of preferences.

 

[flavio81]

Got that right. That's why I refer to the New F-1 as being a modular system camera. It has so many configuration choices, you can set it up to your exact set of preferences.

I have "configured" mine to have an olympic logo at the front, and a serial number that starts with "LA " ...


(Sorry, i couldn't resist boasting)

 

[cooltouch]

Hehe, I was "there" briefly in '84 . Empty freeways -- what a sight.

 

[benjiboy]

I have "configured" mine to have an olympic logo at the front, and a serial number that starts with "LA " ...


(Sorry, i couldn't resist boasting)

Now that's just boasting.

 

[benjiboy]

When I worked at a professional dealers in 1984 the F1-N LA models cost exactly the same prices as the ordinary models, I refuse to pay the the premium prices that people want for these cameras today, and they are not really my style.

 

[flavio81]

When I worked at a professional dealers in 1984 the F1-N LA models cost exactly the same prices as the ordinary models, I refuse to pay the the premium prices that people want for these cameras today, and they are not really my style.

I paid a premium, but on the other hand the camera was (id) mint.

 

[fstop]

When I worked at a professional dealers in 1984 the F1-N LA models cost exactly the same prices as the ordinary models, I refuse to pay the the premium prices that people want for these cameras today, and they are not really my style.

That's like buying a Gold Nikon FA Gran Prix for $2500 when they go for $200.Same camera but more expensive, if you use it at all, it devalues with every exposure.

 

[benjiboy]

That's like buying a Gold Nikon FA Gran Prix for $2500 when they go for $200.Same camera but more expensive, if you use it at all, it devalues with every exposure.

These pimped up cameras just aren't my style, they would appeal to Liberace but I wouldn't want to own one at any price.

 

[Fixcinater]

One way around the depreciation of those mint cameras, buy 'em pre-brassed!

 

[cooltouch]

Nice shot. Which FL lens do you have mounted? My favorite 35mm lens is the Fl 35mm f/2.5. But yours is looking like it might be a 55mm f/1.2.

 

[flavio81]

Nice shot. Which FL lens do you have mounted? My favorite 35mm lens is the Fl 35mm f/2.5. But yours is looking like it might be a 55mm f/1.2.

It is the 58/1.2. I recognize it easily (the front decal ring is narrower than in the 55)

McCooltouch, is your favorite the FL 55 over the FD 55?

 

[Fixcinater]

It is indeed the FL 58/1.2. I haven't tried all the other Canon 1.2 offerings besides the FL55, which beats it, but the 58/1.2 is "better" than the LTM 50/1.2 as far as contrast especially wide open, and flare. The later FD 50/1.4s are again "better" which is to be expected.

I happen to like the look of the FL58, it's very similar to my Rokkor 58/1.2. Not quite as smooth out of focus as the famous Rokkor bokeh but very very good and great for mid length or full portraits. Any tighter and noses get too big for my taste. I'm not a fan of round head portraits though, so YMMV.

 

[cooltouch]

It is the 58/1.2. I recognize it easily (the front decal ring is narrower than in the 55)

McCooltouch, is your favorite the FL 55 over the FD 55?

Actually, I had the opportunity to do a direct comparison between the FL 55/1.2 and the early chrome-nose FD 55/1.2 and I could tell absolutely no difference between the two. I have since read a couple of different articles that claim that the FD 55/1.2 is indeed the same optical formula as the FL 55/1.2. So I don't really have a preference. Well, the FD's coatings might be a little better. I eventually sold the chrome nose after buying a later FD 55/1.2 SSC, cuz I figured its SSC coatings might be better than those found on the chrome nose.

 

[flavio81]

It is indeed the FL 58/1.2. I haven't tried all the other Canon 1.2 offerings besides the FL55, which beats it, but the 58/1.2 is "better" than the LTM 50/1.2 as far as contrast especially wide open, and flare. The later FD 50/1.4s are again "better" which is to be expected.

I happen to like the look of the FL58, it's very similar to my Rokkor 58/1.2. Not quite as smooth out of focus as the famous Rokkor bokeh but very very good and great for mid length or full portraits. Any tighter and noses get too big for my taste. I'm not a fan of round head portraits though, so YMMV.

BTW the R 58/1.2 was the first f1.2 lens for SLR cameras, ever. The FL 58/1.2 is supposedly optically identical.

It has its own distinct look, different to the 55

 

[benjiboy]

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that. But then, I don't know much yet about the F-1N system, but that I like using it already after just two films. This mir.com website is a good place to start reading and there's probably a good book about the Canon F-1N system out there?

I have the PE focussing screen, standard for the New F-1 it seems.

But I would like to try the PL screens also:

"A unique screen which divides the subject not only vertically, but also in the horizontal plane. The subject is in focus when the four quarters merge to become one unbroken image. For all lenses." (source)
Makes sense to me.

The screen the New F1 was supplied with from the factory Bert was the AE.

 

[miha]

BTW the R 58/1.2 was the first f1.2 lens for SLR cameras, ever.

Close, but no cigar
I did research a bit and found that there were possibly two makes of SLR f/1.2 lenses released before 1962: (1) Zunow for their SLR camera and (2) Taika Harigon (by early Tamron!): http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Taika.html

 

[flavio81]

Close, but no cigar
I did research a bit and found that there were possibly two makes of SLR f/1.2 lenses released before 1962: (1) Zunow for their SLR camera and (2) Taika Harigon (by early Tamron!): http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Taika.html

Great research Miha!! I read about it in the past but forgot that it was so early!! f1.2 is quite a feat for such a narrow mount!