to Canon F1 new users

[pluto]

Hi friends,

it's the camera I love more than any other. But, any time I develop a FP4 film, comparing it with a FP4 for which I used a Nikon F100 or F6, in this last I note a higher definition and a sharper negative. Of course, in the same condition of light and subject. With any Nikon lens but AFD 24 mm.
Did you note?
J.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Not that I'm especially a Canon fan, but comparisons should really be made lens by lens in similar conditions...

Could it possibly be that the rolls were taken in different light situations or developed differently?
Or that you used a zoom with the Canon and one of the better primes with the Nikons?
While it *is* possible that *all* your Nikon lenses (except the 24mm) are better, it seems unlikely that the difference would be so visible. Which lenses are you using?

P.S. There might even be some problem with your F1, such as not exposing properly or the film registration being off, etc.

 

[pluto]

Thanks, Rol Lei Nut.
Comparison of course has been made with Canon FD 50/1,4 and Nikon AFD 50/1,4, Canon FD 20/2,8 and Nikon AFD 20/2,8 and so on.
Differences are, for ex., less visible with 20mm but film appears better with Nikon lenses yet. Higher definition, sharper negative....
My Canon lenses are of about 20 years ago. Peraphs this means something, I think.
I note you do not use Canon F1!
J.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

My Canon lenses are of about 20 years ago. Peraphs this means something, I think.
I note you do not use Canon F1!
J.

There are *lots* of 20+ year old lenses out there that are still first rate. That shouldn't be a problem.

If everything is working properly, I'd be surprised to find obvious differences between the two 50mm lenses.

And, no, I do not use a Canon F1 (though not all I use/have used is on the list by far!).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use a New F-1, and I think there is just not enough information to diagnose what you're seeing. You would need to do side-by-side tests with a tripod, similar lenses, processing the film together, both cameras recently serviced, etc. to rule out other issues. There isn't much reason that the camera body would make a very significant difference. Nikon lenses often have more contrast than Canon FD lenses by design, so that could be a factor. You might decide you like Nikon for B&W, Canon for color.

 

[Pumal]

I've many Canons and Nikons, hundreds of lenses. I've made pretty rigorous comparisons of Cannon 50mm f/1.4 against Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. I'm happy with both. I think is a matter of taste and choosing your circumstances well.

 

[tony lockerbie]

I have used (and still do) both systems extensively, and can say that the difference in quality is very hard to pick. There are some Nikkors that I prefer, and some Canon lenses that I would rather use in different situations. Side by side, the 50mm 1.4's from both manufacturers look the same to me, I use the 50mm 1.2L from Canon, which is a better lens than the 1.2 from Nikon (excluding the Noct Nikkor) and the 85mm 1.4 and 105mm 2.5 from Nikon are great.
When I want extreme shallow DOF I use Canon's 135mm F2, and 85mm 1.2L, really no comparable lens from Nikon.
I do mostly use my F1 for day to day stuff, mainly because I just like the range of lenses that I have for it, rather than any great difference in lens quality.

 

[nsurit]

Why not get a Tamron SP lens, like maybe the 90mm f2.5, and a couple of adaptall mounts. That might answer the question. Bill Barber

 

[pluto]

Nikon lenses often have more contrast than Canon FD lenses by design, so that could be a factor. You might decide you like Nikon for B&W, Canon for color.

So you agree that Nikon lenses have usually more contrast compared with Canon FD?!
No, David. I use B/W film only.
J.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's some variation, but I think there's been a long consensus that Canon designs for a little less contrast. More contrast isn't necessarily better, but is suited to different requirements. For color slide films, a less contrasty lens can give you a bit more shadow detail in harder light.

 

[pluto]

. For color slide films, a less contrasty lens can give you a bit more shadow detail in harder light.

That is why you suggested Canon lenses for color film and Nikon ones for B/W, then.
J

 

[darinwc]

Dear Pluto,
I would recommend you change the direction of your post. Declarations of patronage to a particular manufacturers equipment line do not benefit anyone. Generalizations about image quality only serve to continue a fallacy that equipment is more important than technique.

I would like to see some examples of images you are comparing. Please include full details about cameras, lenses, film, and printing. Only then can we discuss the characteristics of a particular combination. I say characteristics rather than merits, because each combination becomes a tool that is equally useful in the right hands.

 

[pluto]

Sorry, but what you write is not the sense of my post which is, least of all, a "declaration of patronage".
Dear darinwc, with no intension to flow dispute, please, read better my posts
I apologize for any misunderstandig anyway.
J.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Apples should only be compared to apples !

Thanks, Rol Lei Nut.
Comparison of course has been made with Canon FD 50/1,4 and Nikon AFD 50/1,4, Canon FD 20/2,8 and Nikon AFD 20/2,8 and so on.
Differences are, for ex., less visible with 20mm but film appears better with Nikon lenses yet. Higher definition, sharper negative....
My Canon lenses are of about 20 years ago. Peraphs this means something, I think.
I note you do not use Canon F1!
J.

I had both Canon F1n's & Canon F1N's, in the vernacular. I'll let someone
else explain, as it is universally agreed upon that Canon is the worst model
naming company, in photography, although sometimes Nikon...

Anyway, if you REALLY want to compare cameras & lenses, get a Nikon F mount lens to Canon FD camera converter. Look at eBay.

Set-up a tripod, load both cameras with the same slide film. Kodak 100 is good for this, as it's speed is true & colors honest. Mount the Nikon 1st. Focus on an evenly lit wall, in the middle of the day. Try to keep the same meter setting. Test all of you Nikon lenses. Shoot each lens at all f-stops possible. Take careful notes; shot vs. f-stop & shutter speed.
2. Then repeat the same procedure with the Canon F1, adapter plus all of your Nikon lenses.
3. Finally, try the same thing with your Canon F1 & your Canon lenses.

By taking careful notes when you get the film back, you can run a frame by
frame analysis.

Please post here, once done.
I for one would be very curious at your unbiased results.

 

[Moose38]

Yeah people tend to get in a tizzy when you say your camera is better then there's. It in some ways sounds if your choice was better then there's. It may be better to say. I PERFER CANON over Nikon. I'm a canon guy. Canon can do no wrong by me. But that's a statment of choice. I will say you will get better image quality in your camera if you stick with Canon lenses. Which is true when it comes to the old FD stuff.

 

[benjiboy]

Is the O.P a good enough photographer for any differences to the final photographs to be significant ? :confused: people agonize too much about their equipment, and not enough about their photographs .

 

[Removed Account2]

I have both a Canon F1n and a Nikon F3HP with a variety of lenses. I was a dedicated canon user since the early 1970's, now I have very many SLR's with accompåanying lenses.

I have noted absolutely nothing of that sort.

Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Praktica, Praktina, Konica, Olympus Pen - ALL still give marvellous definition and contrast, given that I do my part, and given that the lenses are kept CLEAN.

That what you write is balderwash in my book, and a thin disguise to continue the everlasting "debate" over which is better, Canon or Nikon.
Ever considered a Leica? I have one of those too FYI.........

Going back a lot of years, my loft used to be filled with years and years of photomagazines, english, american, german, swedish, danish, norwegian, even australian from a lengthy visityh in my young days.
All where filled nearly to the brim with tests. Some tests where faulty, some tests was obviously bought. But the best was Modern Photography (USA) and a couple of german magazines, I think Color Photo was one of them.......

General consensus at the time when Canon launched their Flex-1 project and that bombshell lens launch (biggest simultaneous lens launch ever?) was that Canon had the upper hand, and several years of adavantage, which was later demonstraded in lens tests during most of the 1970's, Pentax Takumars was super, Olympus OM was super, Minolta was super, Nikon had a lot of catching-up to do. And more often Canon came out on top by a slight margin.

Nikon might finally have caught up during the late 1980's, it was a time of advances in many fields, super coating and wide-spread use of desk-top computers being the driving force, I personally think that those did most difference when it came to zoom lenses, and think that the wide-angle to short tele zooms we now enjoy would have been impossible witout.

But Nikon being significantly better than Canon lenses, if you compare apples to apples? (lenses in the same price bracket).

NO WAY.

If you don't get sharp pictures from a SLR, most any SLR, made after 1970, either the lens is faulty and in need of repair, or the camera body is.

If your'e still not satisfied, go out and make some pictures, instead if photograping printed board with geometric figures on them.

 

[Removed Account2]

Sorry I didn't note this "discussion" had already attracted a lot of answers.

These debates which are returng with the same certainity as US east coast hurricanes are meaningless, fruitless and pointless.

So I promise to stay out of this one from hereon!

Erik

"Every time I try to get OUT, they suck me right back IN" !

 

[2F/2F]

The body should not make a difference unless you are using the cameras at the edges of hand holdability ('30, '60, for example), and there are vibration differences upon releasing the shutters, or if the focusing screen in the Canon is not located in its proper position (which can fairly easily happen on cameras with user-exchangeable focusing screens).

I use '70s Canon F-1s, FT-Bs, and AE-1Ps, Nikon Fs, and occasionally a Pentax Spotmatic, and I have noticed very slight "character" differences between the 50mm lenses (due to coating differences, I assume, Nikon F lenses being single coated and most Canon FD lenses being multi-coated, as one one example), but sharpness is great with all of them. In fact, all three of my 50mm lenses for their respective systems are, what I would call "bitingly sharp," or "as sharp as I could ever hope for in my applications."

I'd take a step back and do a controlled test at shutter speeds that are "more foolproof" (not that you are a "fool," mind you ) when hand holding, such as '500 or '1000. (I say this assuming you shoot hand held, so you can test in the manner of your normal shooting.)

IMHO, there are a zillion things that you could be doing differently between the rolls shot through different cameras, but after checking the focusing screen, the camera body would be low on the list.

 

[Andrew K]

Can I add my 2 cents worth...as a former factory Canon repair technician who used to repair NF1's and EOS 1's when they were new...

There were 3 of us in service who all took photos, and we had the opportunity to play with lots of gear...and not just Canon, as we had friends with other systems. Also this was the time when one of the major local newspapers changed over from Canon to Nikon (because they were the only paper in the group - worldwide who was using Canon..how things have changed..)..

Our opinion, and that of most of the press guys we spoke to, was that both systems had good lenses, but generally some were better than others...

Nikon had the better lenses in wide angle - up to 35mm.

From 35mm to 85mm both systems were pretty even.

From 100mm up Canon was better...

Now I know I'm generalizing..but this is basically what we came up with...

Sure - some Nikon tele lenses were good - 300/2.8, 200/2, 180/2.8, as were some Canon wides - 24/1.4, 24/2.8, but overall people seemed to agree.

Please consider for a moment these comments were from working photographers who had used both systems, and were based on actual "real world" results - that is, enlargements of actual jobs...None had put cameras on tripods and tested lenses to see if one has 2 more LPM (Lines Per Millimeter) than another lens. These were just observations of the results from shooting with the various gear over several months..

First - lets eliminate the lenses you are using....you have a FD 50/1.4. If this is the lens with the chrome mounting ring, then you have the sharpest standard lens Canon ever made..If it's the NFD 50/1.4 with the black rear, then it's still a very good lens. I'm basing this opinion on personal testing - at one stage I tested every 50mm lens I could lay my hands on - around 9 of them.

My testing was simple - I took each lens, mounted it on the same camera body, then took a shot of a piece of paper with the lens description written on it, and then took 2 shots with the lens focussed on infinity (checking each time the lens was actually at infinity in the viewfinder, not just by putting it on infinity), and shot the same subject - mountains about 10KM away at 2 apertures. I then printed the roll on a colour printer (a old Fuji 23 series), and compared all the photos side by side.

If you looked at 2 photos next to each other there wasn't much of a difference, but if you compared the best and worst results then the difference was quite noticable..and before you asked I used a variety of lenses - both old and new FD, including a 50 1.2L, a macro, and various f1.4 and 1.8 lenses. I even tested a NFD 50/2 - a not very common lens.....

So what could be wrong with your NF1?

It could be the pressure plate is a bit soft..easy enough to fix - grab each end of the pressure plate, and bend the springs up a bit so that the pressure plate has a bit more spring...don't need to bend it much, but it will eliminate any concerns there..

It could be the mirror out of adjustment. This is easy enough to check if you have a second body. Pick any lens that stops focussing at infinity (so you can't use a canon zoom or a Tele lens with internal focus) and focus the lens on another body on infinity. Focus on a cloud or a distant tree - the subject should be straight. Now do the same with your NF1 - if it's not focussing to the same point as the other camera then the mirror is probably out of adjustment (not very common, but it does happen).

It could also be the flange depth (the distance between the front of the lens mount and the pressure plate). The correct distance is 42.143mm. From memory the factory tolerance was about +/- 0.01mm, but I tended to adjust them to within +/- 0.002mm...

Then again - I can remember photographers coming in with T90's where the mirror box was loose - I mean you could feel the camera kick when you fired the shutter, and they had never noticed any out of focus issues with their cameras...they'd come in for some other fault!

Easiest way to check if your NF1 is ok is to use 2 cameras - use the same lens - at the same aperture and shutter speed - preferably using the same film loading the camera in both bodies 1 after the other.

Do the same shots under the same lighting conditions (pick a overcast day and shoot around noon so the light doesn't change) with both bodies and compare the results. If the other body is sharper than your NF1 then you need the NF1 serviced. If the NF1 is sharper then you know all is well with the body.

If both results look the same and neither are 100% sharp get another lens...

Sorry to be so long winded..but you did ask what it could be?

Cheers

Andrew

 

[blockend]

I use Nikon and Canon manual focus systems and the FD 24mm F2.8 is a very sharp lens. I'd happily print up to 16 x 12" gallery pics on fibre based paper from it. One myth that never rang true is Nikkors being 'contrasty'. Maybe compared to a screw thread Leica lens, but no more so than other SLRs and nothing that wouldn't be lost in development or print grade difference.

The high-contrast legend may have originated in 60s fashion shots when Nikon was king and punchy was the look people went for?

 

[Pumal]

Let's not forget that Minolta and Olympus have great glass too.