Looking for a Backup to a Canon A1

[cooltouch]

He's asking for a backup for an A-1, not for which is the best FD model to use. I agree with your preference of bodies, but it has nothing to do with the original question.

Excuse me? It has everything to do with it. I bought my FTb originally as a manual back-up for my A-1, and it ended up replacing it.

 

[eli griggs]

The F1n or F1N would be best IMO. I've owned all of these, including the A1 and having capacity you never use is always better than not having the capacity you need. While the "A" model cameras can be very good, the build quality of the F1 cameras is simply better able to stand the rigors of professional use, especially in the hands of an enthusiastic student.

Your son may well find himself using the F1 as his prime and the A1 as his back-up/snap shooter.

Eli

 

[2F/2F]

Excuse me? It has everything to do with it. I bought my FTb originally as a manual back-up for my A-1, and it ended up replacing it.

First of all, relax. I am not personally attacking you, and you don't need to throw the "Excuse me?" 'tude simply because someone opens a minor debate with you.

Next,

OP: "Hi, I need a second car for my kid; something similar to a Toyota Corolla, but not as full featured."

You: "I would get a Lexus, because they perform better than a Corolla."

An answer is a Toyota Tercel, not a discussion of the merits of a Lexus over a Toyota.

The question was not, "Which FD body is best for my kid", but, rather, "Which FD body would make a good backup for my kid's A-1." As I said, I agree with your preference. My only FD bodies are early F-1s and FTbs. But my personal preference for one body over another does not answer the OP's question, which was quite specifically stated.

Also, try and find an F-1 or FTb with a lens for $20 to $30...which is about what a backup should cost these days.

As we all know, there is no better backup camera than a duplicate body. But price does matter; enough so to at least consider cheaper bodies than a duplicate A-1.

 

[katphood]

Maybe the A1 as a backup to the F1. I really liked the FTbN: MLU, 12% "partial" meter, nice magnification and viewfinder coverage specs, and all manual.

 

[Chan Tran]

Why not another A1. If the camera is really to be used as backup just in case the other fails then an idential model would be best. A backup is needed in case you're working on a photographic project (a job, covering an event etc..) and the camera fails. Having the exact replacement would make your task much easier as you are not going to forget how to set something like in the case of switching to a camera that you don't use often. If you really want another camera that can take advantage of the same lenses then the new F1 would be a good choice as you can go from multimode autoexposure to manual only. That would make it more interesting when you're get tired of a camera.

 

[Jeff L]

New F1, hands down.

 

[MattKing]

F1 or Ftb or TX or Tlb - for those times when the reason you need a backup is because you have no functioning batteries.

Matt

 

[cooltouch]

First of all, relax. I am not personally attacking you, and you don't need to throw the "Excuse me?" 'tude simply because someone opens a minor debate with you.

. . .

The question was not, "Which FD body is best for my kid", but, rather, "Which FD body would make a good backup for my kid's A-1." As I said, I agree with your preference. My only FD bodies are early F-1s and FTbs. But my personal preference for one body over another does not answer the OP's question, which was quite specifically stated.

My apologies if you took what I wrote wrong. I made the point of quoting your preferences to point out that you and I do agree as to body choices. But where we differ is I see no problem with showing the OP what else is out there. Neither, apparently, do several other respondents who have recommended F-1s, both new and old (but the old one is better ).

Also, try and find an F-1 or FTb with a lens for $20 to $30...which is about what a backup should cost these days.

Excuse me again -- and I'm not copping a 'tude here -- but I do believe this price estimate is unrealistically low. A backup camera should ideally be one that is simple, rugged, and reliable. And preferably not battery dependent (except perhaps for the meter) if the main camera is. It must work under conditions the main camera can't or won't. Clean cameras that fit this bill can be had for quite reasonable (FTb's can be found on eBay periodically for under $100), but I personally would not want to rely on a $20 camera for a backup, unless I just lucked into an uncommonly good deal on one.

Best,

Michael

 

[Jeffrey S. Winn]

I've been told before that a good backup camera can be the same camera as your primary camera. For example, if you like the A-1, get another A-1. There will be nothing new to learn, and this can save you time when switching between cameras. You will be using the same batteries, etc.

For a small amount of money you can pick up many different Canon FD cameras. I use the T-70 and like it. The T-70 has a few features that I don't care for, like the noisy film advance. It also lacks the shutter speed in the view finder. But, overall the camera is easy to use, has partial metering in addition to the normal average metering, several different program modes, a bright view finder, and uses AA batteries. When combined with a 50mm 1.8 lens it is a small package. The camera also works well with the 299T flash, which adds a lot of options.

Jeff

 

[EdColorado]

I think this is somewhat dependent on what a backup camera is for. I see a backup as what I grab when the main camera stops working, or as a second body to use to cut down time "swapping lenses". One body has the shorter choice, the other has the longer choice. This is why when I used to spend a lot of time shooting motorsports I carried two T-90s, you don't want to have to reconfigure yourself when you switch over. If you shoot with an A1, then the backup should be an A1. A backup could also be the camera you use when conditions warrant not using your main camera but the OP didn't say anything along those lines. I'd thus vote for an A1. They are a bit more expensive than a AE-1 or Program but as another said going to one of these after the A1 is a bit of a downgrade. Cost wise the A1 is a bit more but deals are out there, I just picked one up off Ebay in the mid $20 range and its actually pretty clean.

 

[firecracker]

I would say New F-1 with Eye-level finder because it is a pro-use camera back in the day and still repairable, meaning you don't just throw it away when it breaks down and someone tells you he/or she can't fix it. There are still a few repair shops, if not in the U.S. then over here in Japan, that can do wonderful repair jobs on this camera.

 

[dynachrome]

A mechanical camera would be a good back-up so I agree that an F-1 or F-1n would be nice. If that's to expensive then an FTb or FTbN would also work. If you can find one, a Canon EF gives you mechanical speeds except for the slow ones, a sensitive silicon meter cell and shutter priority automation.

 

[k_jupiter]

****£60-80? I must be out of touch. I bought my first T90 in 1999 for over £250****

Shooosh keep it a secret, all the newbies are paying high prices for Nikon gear thinking it's going to make them great photographers....so more Canon goodies for us at cheaper prices.

What newbies? Newbies by D something or others. Analog photographers buy Nikon for the same reason they buy Cannon. Or Olympus, or Pentax, or Minolta. It's hard to get junk if you buy name brand 135 equipment. There is a reason these companies were in business for the length of time they were.

My advice? Get him one that looks just like the one he is using. Nothing beats the feel of a camera body (FM2 in my case) that feels like an extension of your hand. Eliminate the equipment and concentrate on the artistic view.

tim in san jose

 

[stealthman_1]

I'd get another A-1, but I'm kinda biased, I still like that camera a lot.

 

[Excalibur2]

***Analog photographers buy Nikon for the same reason they buy Cannon. Or Olympus, or Pentax, or Minolta.***

Well after using medium format for 20 years and 20 years before that 35mm with a Pentax S3, went back to MF 35mm in the last year to see what I had been missing and the advances made up to about 1983...........and decided Konica and Canon were for me because of the silly prices for Nikon gear....and I'm quite willing for any contest to compare consumer/common Lenses from Canon and Hexanon lenses against consumer/common Nikon lenses.

 

[k_jupiter]

***Analog photographers buy Nikon for the same reason they buy Cannon. Or Olympus, or Pentax, or Minolta.***

Well after using medium format for 20 years and 20 years before that 35mm with a Pentax S3, went back to MF 35mm in the last year to see what I had been missing and the advances made up to about 1983...........and decided Konica and Canon were for me because of the silly prices for Nikon gear....and I'm quite willing for any contest to compare consumer/common Lenses from Canon and Hexanon lenses against consumer/common Nikon lenses.

I won't get drug into the Cannon v. Nikon nonsense. Or any other. You look at any photograph and you cannot tell what camera line it came from. I shot Nikon because the quality of lens was there, the bodies felt good in hand (and think about it, it's always about how bodies feel in hand), the quality of the workmanship of all components in the system, and the sound of that titanium shutter opening and closing. Every person chooses their equipment based upon similar qualities, all biased to their own criteria.

Like your Cannon? Go for it. It isn't a contest. Now you want to talk Mamiya v. Hasselblad.....

tim in san jose

 

[Excalibur2]

I won't get drug into the Cannon v. Nikon nonsense. Or any other. You look at any photograph and you cannot tell what camera line it came from. I shot Nikon because the quality of lens was there, the bodies felt good in hand (and think about it, it's always about how bodies feel in hand), the quality of the workmanship of all components in the system, and the sound of that titanium shutter opening and closing. Every person chooses their equipment based upon similar qualities, all biased to their own criteria.

Like your Cannon? Go for it. It isn't a contest. Now you want to talk Mamiya v. Hasselblad.....

tim in san jose

ermm....the camera body is just a tool for me, I don't care what make it is a long as it does the job reliably, and an expensive camera is not going to make you a better photographer, but of course you are correct in that it's an added bonus if it fits into your hand nicely...Canons (and Konicas) are cheap in price, and with my range of FTB, AV1, T70, T90 (total cost £110 I paid) would be cheaper to buy than quite a few single Nikons, if say a FM2n can do more than my selection, I would be suprised.
I just select one or two of my cameras (inc Konica) for the subject I'm interested in...the cheapest for sandy beaches on holiday also with a P&S
Anyway that's my system and works for me, and haven't even mentioned my MTL3 and screw lenses in my collection (another cheap way to get into film photography).

Mamiya v Hasselblad? I have no idea how the lens on a RB67 or Bronica ETRS compares for sharpness, bokeh or colours..but the tele rolleiflex and SL66 (I once owned) might have given a blad some competition in a lens debate, well the SL66 had a similar/same planar lens construction, maybe just a tele Rollei v the blad lens debate then, with some one else.

 

[k_jupiter]

Camera bodies...

When my brother, a pretty good amateur photographer in his own right, doesn't notice I have shot four rolls of film at a family party, it means you have gotten the camera to be an extension of your hand, you need not spend time fiddling with the speed dial, the aperture dial, or nothing. At that point, the camera has become nothing more than an extension of your vision. Point is, any prime lens coming out of Japan especially is going to have a certain level of quality. But.. and I have no idea how much a FM2n cost these days, the price of most nikon equipment cannot be more than the value. I suspect that it isn't as low as the Fujinon I bought just to mount a russian portrait lens, but it is still worth the going price.

And I still won't put your choice of camera down. If it feels comfortable to you, run with it.


tim in san jose

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

A Canon AE-1 Program would be ideal beside the well endowed A1 — which was my working camera 1983-1984 before switching to the Olympus OM4. As with all older cameras, ensure you have the body tested thoroughly and any signs of heavy wear (particularly the lens mount) are prudently considered before commitment.

 

[Excalibur2]

***And I still won't put your choice of camera down. If it feels comfortable to you, run with it.**

Well I have nothing against Nikons, and would have a few models to go with my basic EM (this would be my backup for this thread title)...if only they were the same price as Canons, Konicas.

 

[k_jupiter]

***And I still won't put your choice of camera down. If it feels comfortable to you, run with it.**

Well I have nothing against Nikons, and would have a few models to go with my basic EM (this would be my backup for this thread title)...if only they were the same price as Canons, Konicas.

Now that camera I will put down. The EM was a horrid little thing that Nikon put out. They have a tendency to go south with the metering circuit. Seems the variable resistor attached to the aperture ring wasn't up to industry standards.

tim in san jose

 

[mudman]

***And I still won't put your choice of camera down. If it feels comfortable to you, run with it.**

Well I have nothing against Nikons, and would have a few models to go with my basic EM (this would be my backup for this thread title)...if only they were the same price as Canons, Konicas.

I've never paid much for my nikon gear
28mm lens, AF -$20
35mm f2 AIS - $30
50mm f1.8 AF - $30
105mm f2.5 AIS - $40
Nikon Fm with 50mm f1.8 - trade for K1000 with 50mm f2
55mm f3.5 micro Ai'd - $10.

Now I may not be the average price, but the deals are out there if you look. All of those prices are within the last 2 years.

 

[Excalibur2]

Now that camera I will put down. The EM was a horrid little thing that Nikon put out. They have a tendency to go south with the metering circuit. Seems the variable resistor attached to the aperture ring wasn't up to industry standards.

tim in san jose

Well my father left it to me 8 years ago, and has the Nikkor F1.8 (not e lens) and that lens is excellent...I was mainly into medium format until recently but used it quite a few times for convenience esp on sandy/dusty conditions on holiday, so what can I say..well only that I got excellent results with correct exposures nearly all the time and the battery last for ages.

Both pics Nikon EM hand held, 5X7" print scanned, IIRC it was either kodak 400 or 800 asa, shot taken in Ibiza:-

 

[Excalibur2]

I've never paid much for my nikon gear
28mm lens, AF -$20
35mm f2 AIS - $30
50mm f1.8 AF - $30
105mm f2.5 AIS - $40
Nikon Fm with 50mm f1.8 - trade for K1000 with 50mm f2
55mm f3.5 micro Ai'd - $10.

Now I may not be the average price, but the deals are out there if you look. All of those prices are within the last 2 years.

Well you seem to get cheaper bargains in the US, but indeed if you are lucky there are bargains around in the UK, the other week I saw a Nikon F4 and EM both for £70, on a UK site...phoned up immediately and they had gone.

 

[k_jupiter]

Well my father left it to me 8 years ago, and has the Nikkor F1.8 (not e lens) and that lens is excellent...I was mainly into medium format until recently but used it quite a few times for convenience esp on sandy/dusty conditions on holiday, so what can I say..well only that I got excellent results with correct exposures nearly all the time and the battery last for ages.

We call that camera an "Outlier".

tim in san jose