What's the skinny on Canon F-1

Hey all,

So the information on the Canon F-1 is needless to say, VAST. I'm hoping somebody can break it down, as asking those who know is much easier than trying to piece together what I want to know from so many disparate sources.

Basically, what I want is aperture & shutter priority mode. Full AE is not necessary, but I'd take it. I want mirror-lock-up and don't want to attach all sorts of accessories. As I understand (certainly I could be mistaken) you need to have the motor drive for shutter priority on the New F-1; this isn't appealing.

As far as I can tell the older F-1, or F-1n is what I want(?). Please, can somebody break it down for me.

The A-1 sounds almost perfect, except no MLU.

I have an AE-1 & AE-1P and am very pleased with both, except the no MLU & aperture priority would be sweet.

Thanks so much in advance!

Oh, and what about battery-less operation. Only the older F-1? Plus, I'd like the ability to do multiple exposures.

The Older f-1 is completely mechanical, so no AE. It's a great tough camera if you can find one with a working meter and replaced light seals and mirror bumper.
I'm not an expert on the new f-1.
If you can live without AE and exchangeable viewfinders, the Canon ftb, is a superb camera with mirror lock up.
By the way what do you need mirror lock up for? I find that it's a feature that's not needed 99.99% of the time.

Regards
Mads

Well, I've found that most of my macro shots are not as sharp as they could be. I've got the FL-bellows & just want the option. A lot of the time when I'm composing shots, and time is not a factor, I'd prefer to just lock up the mirror & have one iota more sharpness.

And yes, I'm interested in the FTb. Probably could be had cheap, no?

So when you say completely mechanical, no AE, does that mean no shutter/aperture priority, or just fully auto?

Appreciate it!

I have two New F-1s. The New F-1 is my favorite camera body. I have yet to need mirror lockup, and doubt I will ever need it. Thus, the F-1N is a "no brainer" for me. The build quality on this camera is simply exceptional. The old F-1 and FTb are good choices, but I stay away from those older cameras that take mercury batteries. There is just too much of a hassle with them. I also have an A-1. It, too, is an excellent choice.

There is not that much info to decipher. All you need to know can be found on the basic spec sheets on the Canon Website. I think the URL is www.canon.com/camera-museum, or something similar. My main 35mm cameras are the '70s F-1s and FTbs. They are perfect cameras. I would not change a thing about them. The battery fix is easy as pie (just adapt a 675 hearing aid battery with a split washer), but I don't even use the in-camera meters anyhow, so it is really a non issue. IMHO, there is no better way to get a less-than-ideal exposure than by listening to an in-camera meter.

loman said:

The Older f-1 is completely mechanical, so no AE.

Click to expand...

You could use the Servo EE finder... this gives you shutter priority, at the expense of added bulkiness (the finder is huge, attached on the camera and has a kind of "probe" that goes in the reflex chamber, and you feed it with (IIRC) 4 LR20 cells in a box that is attached to your belt and linked to the camera with a "telephone" style cable !

I had one some (too many) years ago, but stupidly sold it when I needed cash. The old F1 is really a beautiful camera !

For shutter priority auto exposure on the New F-1 you need the winder or the motor drive. For aperture priority auto exposure you need the AE finder. It doesn't have a Program mode (full auto) like the A-1.

Canon claimed that the New F-1 didn't need mirror lockup, because the mirror was better damped than previous versions of the F-1. I doubted this for many years until I actually had an opportunity to test it, and Canon is right (presuming the camera is in good repair and has had a recent CLA). I had an EF body, which is mechanically the same as an F-1 in this specific regard, and while the EF does better with MLU than it does without MLU, the EF with MLU is not necessarily better than the New F-1 in my experience.

The New F-1 has a range of shutter speeds that are usable if the battery fails and for some reason you don't have access to a new battery.

The FTb is metered manual only. The original F-1 is, I think, the same, but adds interchangable viewfinders, focusing screens, and a higher top shutter speed. The second version of the F-1 has some minor improvements but uses the same accessories. Both F-1's and the FTb use the old mercury battery. The third version of the F-1 (called NEW) takes modern batteries, has auto-exposure control, but lacks mirror lockup.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1/index.htm

It was before Canon's love affair with plastic.

Bodies were made of metal, not plastic. Lenses were made of metal and glass elements, not plastic barrels and plastic lens elements.

I, too, almost never use the in-camera meter. I use a hand-held light meter. However, I like having a working meter in a camera for those rare occasions when I forget my light meter, or when there is an odd mixture of light and I need something of a "second opinion."

In my opinion, there is no better camera than the New F-1. Its range of accessories is stunning. The previous poster could not have said it better: at one time, Canon made some beautiful cameras and lenses--and they were made of real materials, metal and glass.

The camera of the Canon FD range I would recommend for your requirements is the EF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_camera It's the same build quality as the old F1 has a mirror lock up, a wonderful Copal hybrid shutter that is both mechanical and electronic and is both shutter priority AE and manual,has a Silicon cell lightmeter, and works without batteries I have most of the Canon FD range F1N- AE, T90, A1, FTbn but this one IMHO is the smoothest of them all and the jewel in the crown .

The 'New' F-1, the EF and the FTb are all three great cameras. I also use a hand held meter. The MLU I have seldom use it. All three are built like tanks.

I also have an old F1 and a FTb which I totally love! The A1 is great camera also.

Jeff

David A. Goldfarb said:

Canon claimed that the New F-1 didn't need mirror lockup, because the mirror was better damped than previous versions of the F-1. I doubted this for many years until I actually had an opportunity to test it, and Canon is right (presuming the camera is in good repair and has had a recent CLA). I had an EF body, which is mechanically the same as an F-1 in this specific regard, and while the EF does better with MLU than it does without MLU, the EF with MLU is not necessarily better than the New F-1 in my experience.

Click to expand...

I have owned several F-1s, both old and New, an FTb, and an EF.

Regarding Canon's claim that no MLU was necessary with the New F-1, I was just the opposite from David. I believed it until I read an article in Modern Photography back in 1983 or 1984 about this very issue, and they showed photos of a test target taken at long exposure times with the old F-1 using its MLU feature and the New F-1. The difference was much more than negligible. They concluded by recommending the old F-1 or even the FTb if one was doing macro or long telephoto photography.

I will never forget that article. Shortly after reading it I bought an FTb because it was part of my plans at the time to engage in both macrophotography and long telephoto photography. Not long after that I bought my first F-1 (an old one) because I found I really needed interchangeable focusing screens, which the FTb doesn't have. I have used the FTb's and old F-1s' MLU capability on many occasions, and have always been glad they were available functions.

As it so happens, I never bothered using my New F-1 for high-magnification photography (honestly, I didn't own it very long -- a great camera, but I just liked the old one better).

About the EF -- it is most definitely not "mechanically the same as an F-1 in this specific regard" unless David mean specifically the MLU mechanism. Otherwise the EF was unique to all other Canon cameras of the time, possessing a vertically traveling metal blade focal plane Copal shutter (think Nikon FM/FE). Even with the new shutter design, though, Canon decided to keep the MLU capability. Smart move IMO. And not a smart move, IMO to have dropped that feature with the New F-1.

Finally about the OP's original request for info. To my knowledge, Canon has never made an FD-mount SLR that has Aperture and Shutter priority AE as well as MLU. Apparently, however, it is possible to retrofit the T-90 for MLU. I don't know anything about the procedure, I just know that it has been done. Thus, if all three of these features are essential, I would recommend a T90, and then find someone to modify it for MLU.

Regarding the EF and the F-1, indeed the EF was unique in using the Copal Square shutter, but the mirror mechanism, I'm fairly sure is the same, as is the chassis. MLU eliminates vibration from mirror slap but doesn't do anything for shutter vibration, which is a separate issue.

I suspect that since these cameras are all getting on in years at this point, and there is no more Canon service for them, it's best to test the cameras one has in hand and decide how to use them.

In any case, I've used my New F-1, which I purchased new when it was in production and have had serviced with some regularity, for high magnification photography and for bird photography, and I have no complaints about unsharpness due to camera vibration. Of course, mirror induced vibration isn't the only issue.

I guess what I meant by keeping the old MLU system even with the new Copal shutter in the EF is that Canon could have done what other camera makers who went with the Copal shutter did, which was more of a mirror pre-release than true MLU. With these cameras, when the self-timer was set, the mirror would release as soon as the shutter release was tripped, and then the count down began. This became an effective substitute for MLU, but it was a technique that Canon chose not to implement. And unfortunately, they chose not to implement it with the T90 also.

BTW, regarding the T90, and without intending to hijack this thread, but since it is germane to the OP's questions, I have located through a bit more digging, the website of a fellow who performs the MLU mod on the T90, as well as several other mods:

http://cameraclinic-usa.com/

Michael

As an F-1N user and Canon enthusiast, I find this discussion quite interesting. I had always wondered why MLU was not offered on the F-1N and T90. I had figured it was for the same reason that Nikon did not offer it on the F100 (i.e. that it offered little or no improvement).

Jeff Kubach said:

I also have an old F1 and a FTb which I totally love! The A1 is great camera also.

Jeff

Click to expand...

I agree Jeff, but although the A1 is light and is very pleasant to use, and even though I've had it for twenty years without any trouble, I never felt the same confidence in it as the others I own, I feel you could knock nails in with my FTbn, F1N-AE , and EF and they would still work

thanks everybody, this gives me a much better idea of what to expect. It's funny that there is no PERFECT canon camera, meaning with every function we've discussed, all in one place. I think I might spring for an older F-1 one of these days. Thanks for all the input!

Cheers & happy shooting

I disagree, many if not most of the New F-1 era lenses were made with plastic components, often plastic clip rings with a spot of glue to hold elements in place, they only seemed like metal (like the top plate of the AE-1). Much lower build quality than comparable Nikkors (even Series E are better built than some FD.) The earlier breech mount lenses are built much better, more in line with the better lenses. As soon as they went to FD then it went to plastic except for L lenses. I think its the tragic fallacy of Canon, they seem well built until you get in under the hood and the reality becomes clear. I was given an FD series Zoom to fix, not the very lowest/cheapest but not an L series, just under L, and it while it was in decent shape the elements needed a cleaning. Having vast experience with CLA of lenses I went in, and was appalled. Important front elements were 'secured' with a simple wire circlip style retaining ring, one easy tap in the right spot and the front element would fall out, other smaller sets of elements were set into plastic housings with plastic rings pressure fitted tight, those were easy to have centering errors. Even worse was a flare shield, set apparently with screws but that was a false build, the screws were set into plastic that cracked, but the screws were a front, the actual shield was held on by pressure, the screws were there to Look like quality when peeking in the front. After all that, the lens cleaned up fairly well except for a cemented pair that had the cement fail, complete unfixable fog. Ridiculous how low quality masked up as 'real' quality. Compare that to a Vivitar Series One zoom from the same period, and its not even close how much better that lens is, thats the real stuff. My advice is to only go for the L series for FD or the earlier breech mount unless you really need that particular lens type, and if you do get an FD make sure its in really exceptional condition, and don't drop it. For the money the Vivitar Series One lenses for Canon are a better buy for a better lens.

You can recognize the earlier lenses by the chrome ring in the back. SCC also helps. That's all I have and have had no problems in all these years.

I myself still like most of the FD lenses. I also have no problems with any of my lenses.

Jeff

I have the old F1, a F1n and a few Ftb's, which I use all the time. The F1n has the auto finder for aperture priority, I never use shutter priority, which I find really accurate. Never had to use mirror lock-up, and I do a lot of close up stuff, with the macro lenses instead of the bellows.
I have converted my Ftb's to S76 batteries as I really like the semi-spot metering with the shaded area in the viewfinder, which is really effective. I have never used a hand held meter with any of my Canons, the built in meters are just better.....provided that they are checked and calibrated.

I agree--the meters in my Canons (F-1N and A-1) are easily the best I have used...and I have used and owned cameras from all the major Japanese manufacturers.

I, too, have had fine results with Canon FD glass. In addition, I have kept three of my Pentax screwmount lenses. I use a Canon P adapter for these. Automatic diaphragm operation is fine for most applications, but I sometimes prefer stopping down prior to releasing the shutter. Hence, the manual operation of screwmount lenses makes for a nice option with my Canon bodies. I am considering some Canon R-series lenses (manual diaphragms), too, but the R 50/1.8 will not work on the F-1N (according to the instruction book).

Canon F-1

For macro work you must be able to focus properly using any part of the focusing screen. The EF and FTb models do not have interchangeable screens. The first EF has a microprism screen and the second had a combination split image/microprism screen similar to the E screen in the F-1. My EF is the second type. The FTb and early FTbN had a microprism screen. Later FTbNs were available with a split image screen With slow lenses or with macro lenses used close up the microrpism and split image focusing aids black out. You could try to use the rest of the screen to focus and then recompose but that's not a good solution. My usual screen is the L D. This is the brighter L version of the D grid screen for the F-1/F-1n. The F-1N is only slightly brighter than an F-1n with an L screen.

Automatic exposure, like automatic focusing, is not very useful for macro work. You first need to make sure that you have adequate depth of field and then need to make sure your shutter speed is high enough to stop any camera and/or subject movement. Through the lens metering is preferable to a separate meter for macro work. Extension tubes and bellows require exposure calculations which can be complicated if you are using a separate meter. The Nikon F3 of 1980 had two important features for macro work which were missing from the F-1N. The first, which has been mentioned, is mirror lock-up. Whether you have an Olympus or a Canon F-1 or a Contax SLR, mirror lock-up is preferable to no mirror lock-up in certain situations and you just can't get around that. The second feature is TTL flash metering. My F-1 cameras include two F-1s and an F-1n. If I need TTL flash capability I use a Minolta X-700. The X-700 doesn't have mirror lock-up but that's not really needed when you are using flash. I use either a grod ro plain matte screen in the X-700.

I wouldn't let the battery for an F-1 or F-1n bother me. I use MR-9 adapters in my F-1s and they work fine. The meter in the EF is more modern than the one in the F-1 or F-1n. It responds to changes in lighting very quickly and is sensitive. Most macro work does not require that speed so the older CdS meters in the F-1/F-1n are more than adequate. If you must have extra sensitivity you can find a Booster Finder.

Getting back to the focusing screen issue, even in good light I find the focusing aids distracting for macro work. For shooting portraits I would normally focus on the eyes and shoot in a vertical orientation. I find a grid screen good for this too. The F-1/F-1n can be used with a waist level finder or Speed Finder. Both are useful for macro work and not available on the EF or FTb/FTbN. Unfortunately you can't see the meter needle with the waist level finder attached. The Speed Finder does let you meter. The 6X finder for the F-1N will not fit an F-1/F-1n so that's one disadvantage of these cameras.

I agree that many of the earlier breech lock lenses are more sturdily built. This doesnlt mean that the later New FD lenses weren't also good. The breech lock lenses were made from late 1970 to about 1979. The New FD lenses were made from about 1979 to 1986. This means that even the youngest New FD lenses are nearly 23 years old. The 200/1.8 FD might be an exception because it came out after the EF version. I just had a second 100/2.8 New FD serviced and a 35/2 New FD is now in for service. The 35/2 FD SSC (1st version) is more sturdily built but both lenses are very sharp. I have many lenses in both versions and they are generally comparable in performance.