Which Canon FD mount SLR to test first?

[trythis]

Just drill a hole in your camera base and top, then you'll know what it was made of.

 

[frank]

Just drill a hole in your camera base and top, then you'll know what it was made of.

You have the perfect avatar name for this suggestion!

 

[fstop]

What does "apron" mean?
What camera manual you got?

Maybe I got the "Blue Mauritius" AE-1s, the only known samples with brass bottom. Any offers?

Its a Canon factory service manual.

trythis

Just drill a hole in your camera base and top, then you'll know what it was made of.

I'm going to get the cheapest AE-1, AE-1 Program and A-1 bodies I can find and check them out.You don't have to drill a hole, Just pull the plate off and tap it with metal object, screw driver etc. Dents vs cracks are a dead give away.I know the top is plastic its just a matter of checking the base plate.

 

[trythis]

I'm going to get the cheapest AE-1, AE-1 Program and A-1 bodies I can find and check them out.You don't have to drill a hole, Just pull the plate off and tap it with metal object, screw driver etc. Dents vs cracks are a dead give away.I know the top is plastic its just a matter of checking the base plate.

That's not the point. Saws, drill bits and rasps are better at telling you what your camera is made of and knowing that will make you a better photographer. You can always fill the holes made by drill bits with bondo, cover them with tape or better yet, put a screw in the hole so the next person repairing it is confused. Saws and rasps require the bondo and paint method for resale for sure, so I recommend a drill bit.

 

[blockend]

Why does it matter if the body is plastic or metal?

 

[AgX]

Exactly. That sturdiness of the body is just one part of the story. If one grain of sand can make a camera practically useless (as I experienced with just an AE-1) there are other issues related to environmental impact that should be thought about.

Furthermore, plastic is a very general term, and the design of a cover part is influence too. A part that is thick, fibre enforced, ribbed and resting via studs at several points on the metal frame can take other impacts than a unsupported, thin cover.

 

[fstop]

That's not the point. Saws, drill bits and rasps are better at telling you what your camera is made of and knowing that will make you a better photographer. You can always fill the holes made by drill bits with bondo, cover them with tape or better yet, put a screw in the hole so the next person repairing it is confused. Saws and rasps require the bondo and paint method for resale for sure, so I recommend a drill bit.

30+ years in manufacturing,20+ years in camera repair as a hobby I'll do it my way.I'm not worried about resale,when I'm done I'll salvage what parts I can use and the rest will go in the garbage.

blockend
Why does it matter if the body is plastic or metal?

Just trying to answer questions with facts.Metal bodies or more technical metal body frames are better.The alignment between the film plane and lens mount is critical. Die cast aluminum is more stable than plastic. Plastic body coverings are ok.

 

[trythis]

I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious.

sent from phone. excuse my typing.

 

[blockend]

Metal bodies or more technical metal body frames are better.The alignment between the film plane and lens mount is critical. Die cast aluminum is more stable than plastic. Plastic body coverings are ok.

I own a wide variety of cameras including SLRs, and haven't reached a firm conclusion about which is 'better' because there are so many things to take into consideration. When I began buying film cameras again after a hiatus, I bought Nikkormats. Most of those were cheap because they were battered, but still worked. Some had extensive damage, large hits to the prism and elsewhere, but all operated properly. Did they work because they were well made and durable, or were they damaged because they were metal skinned, heavy and relatively difficult to hold? I don't know the answer.

On the other hand all my plastic SLRs are intact and undamaged. I disagree about plastic covered metal chassis cameras, as I suspect they offer the worst of both worlds, being heavy enough to shatter the body on impact, but not light enough to bounce. Ebay contains a large number of modern prosumer DSLRs (metal chassis, plastic cover) sold for 'spares or repair'. These often have shattered corners, missing covers and general fallout from impacts.

A large impact will kill any camera, it's the usual drops and hits that are difficult to assess. Perhaps professional metal-bodied cameras survive, because their financial and sentimental value to their owner means they aren't thrown in the trash after a fall?

 

[fstop]

I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious.

sent from phone. excuse my typing.

You need to use the [sarcasm] insert sarcasm [/sarcasm] code.

I own a wide variety of cameras including SLRs, and haven't reached a firm conclusion about which is 'better' because there are so many things to take into consideration. When I began buying film cameras again after a hiatus, I bought Nikkormats. Most of those were cheap because they were battered, but still worked. Some had extensive damage, large hits to the prism and elsewhere, but all operated properly. Did they work because they were well made and durable, or were they damaged because they were metal skinned, heavy and relatively difficult to hold? I don't know the answer.

On the other hand all my plastic SLRs are intact and undamaged. I disagree about plastic covered metal chassis cameras, as I suspect they offer the worst of both worlds, being heavy enough to shatter the body on impact, but not light enough to bounce. Ebay contains a large number of modern prosumer DSLRs (metal chassis, plastic cover) sold for 'spares or repair'. These often have shattered corners, missing covers and general fallout from impacts.

A large impact will kill any camera, it's the usual drops and hits that are difficult to assess. Perhaps professional metal-bodied cameras survive, because their financial and sentimental value to their owner means they aren't thrown in the trash after a fall?

It doesn't have to be impact damage, a large heavy lens mounted on a body exerts a force on the body which tries to bend the mount downward from the body.Mount the body on a tripod now you have more potential for flex/misalignment in the body.


Ebay is full of all sorts of cameras, hard to draw a conclusion based on what is for sale.
there are tons of 35mm SLRs for sale on there because people have been moving away from SLRs and/or film to digital or compacts. Its been going for years, even before digital became mainstream.
Not surprising to see a large number of dead digitals, there are a lot of them sold.

AgX


Exactly. That sturdiness of the body is just one part of the story. If one grain of sand can make a camera practically useless (as I experienced with just an AE-1)

there are other issues related to environmental impact that should be thought about.

Furthermore, plastic is a very general term, and the design of a cover part is influence too. A part that is thick, fibre enforced, ribbed and resting via studs at several points on the metal frame can take other impacts than a unsupported, thin cover.

Yes that is true about environmental concerns. Consider that aluminum alloys are recyclable, but engineering plastics that meet aluminum strength and rigidity are not an easily recycled thermoplastic but a thermosetting plastic that can not be recycled.

 

[blockend]

It doesn't have to be impact damage, a large heavy lens mounted on a body exerts a force on the body which tries to bend the mount downward from the body.Mount the body on a tripod now you have more potential for flex/misalignment in the body.

Sure, but all-plastic entry level SLRs are usually matched with lightweight AF lenses. I find such a combination one of the least damage prone, and I use them a lot because I'm too lazy/sensible to carry my professional cameras unless there's a very good reason. They function more like point and shoot cameras with a mirror box, than 'serious' cameras, something I'm grateful for.

 

[benjiboy]

I find the A1 a very pleasant lightweight to shoot with and it's been very reliable considering I bought it second hand more than 25 years ago, I have had it C.L.A'd once, although I admit I've never really liked it I tend to use it as a lightweight walkaround camera or in situations that could potentially cause damage to my other cameras, because if it got trashed I could live with it, and the shutter priority AE is sometimes handy because to get shutter priority on my New F1's I have to have my AE motor drive FN fitted to the camera which uses 12 AA batteries combined with New F1 that's no lightweight the weight is considerable, and not what I want to walk around with on a casual basis.

 

[David Goldstein]

,the AE-1 didn't offer aperture priority

Technically, it doesn't, but if you look through the viewfinder, as you roll the shutter dial, what is displayed, is the f/stop in the LED display. I find it works just liked aperture priority if I think of it that way.

And to answer the OP's original question - I would shoot the AE-1P everyday before any of the others listed, (I am biased, I have been shooting an AE-1P since 1983. Before that, an AE-1).

The A-1 and it's miniscule shutter/aperture dial is my biggest gripe on what is otherwise a nice camera. The earlier cameras are just flat awkward to use for my style of shooting.

 

[benjiboy]

Technically, it doesn't, but if you look through the viewfinder, as you roll the shutter dial, what is displayed, is the f/stop in the LED display. I find it works just liked aperture priority if I think of it that way.

And to answer the OP's original question - I would shoot the AE-1P everyday before any of the others listed, (I am biased, I have been shooting an AE-1P since 1983. Before that, an AE-1).

The A-1 and it's miniscule shutter/aperture dial is my biggest gripe on what is otherwise a nice camera. The earlier cameras are just flat awkward to use for my style of shooting.

You get used to the command dial, I press the shutter relese gently to get the display on with my index finger and turn the.dial with my second finger.

 

[blockend]

Although I own an A-1, I rarely use it for the reasons stated. It was the beginning of the reassignment of dials to other purposes, which ended in the madness of the modern DSLR. Why, for instance, allocate the choice of aperture to a little wheel, when there's a perfectly positioned, large and indexed dial around the lens. Because they could, is the real answer. There's pretty much nothing the A-1 does better than other cameras, and plenty it turns into a fussy, ergonomic mess.

 

[benjiboy]

Although I own an A-1, I rarely use it for the reasons stated. It was the beginning of the reassignment of dials to other purposes, which ended in the madness of the modern DSLR. Why, for instance, allocate the choice of aperture to a little wheel, when there's a perfectly positioned, large and indexed dial around the lens. Because they could, is the real answer. There's pretty much nothing the A-1 does better than other cameras, and plenty it turns into a fussy, ergonomic mess.

I agree with you to large extent and admit that the A1 isn't my favourite camera but since I have it and they're worth so little now on the open market it's not worth the trouble of selling it, I too do use it occasionally.

 

[trythis]

I want to like my A1, it was given to me by my dad in 1980's, but I just cant seem to like using it. I like that it has aperture priority, but its so weird to use. Mine needs a CLA, but its hard to want to spend that money on repairing it.

 

[fstop]

Although I own an A-1, I rarely use it for the reasons stated. It was the beginning of the reassignment of dials to other purposes, which ended in the madness of the modern DSLR. Why, for instance, allocate the choice of aperture to a little wheel, when there's a perfectly positioned, large and indexed dial around the lens. Because they could, is the real answer. There's pretty much nothing the A-1 does better than other cameras, and plenty it turns into a fussy, ergonomic mess.

I agree,however, if you like a smaller body than the F-1 and shoot either in shutter priority or program mode the A-1 do that well
.

trythis


I want to like my A1, it was given to me by my dad in 1980's, but I just cant seem to like using it. I like that it has aperture priority, but its so weird to use. Mine needs a CLA, but its hard to want to spend that money on repairing it.

That is a big dilemma. Sentimental resasons aside, by time you find a competent repairman and ship it back and forth and cover the repair cost you could buy a better one for less. Around 120 from KEH for an EX unit.

 

[blockend]

As with so many film cameras, my view of them has mellowed over the years, and while can't say I actually enjoy using the A-1, I appreciate its role in photographic history, especially the Program mode. A friend had one when they were first released, and coming from a match needle manual SLR, he never got on with the A-1 and openly regretted buying it. It seemed gratuitously quirky to me, and those quirks got in the way of taking photographs rather than aiding it.

I have nearly all the Canons of the 70s and 80s, and the ones I use most are the AV-1, the AT-1 and the T90, cameras at opposite ends of the technological spectrum.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't think I have ever used my A1 in programme mode, mainly A and T modes. Considering that the A series Canon's for a relatively cheap consumer grade series of cameras were a stroke of genious from Canon, because by useing modern automated manufacturing techniques they were able to capture the market with cameras that were capable at a price the public could afford that has proved over time on the whole to be pretty reliable.

 

[frank]

Sorry, but I still see the Canon ae1 as the Big Mac of cameras.

Billions sold, but quantity is such a superficial criteria. Is the big mac a really good burger?

I was a Nikon guy, so forgive my bias.

 

[benjiboy]

Sorry, but I still see the Canon ae1 as the Big Mac of cameras.

Billions sold, but quantity is such a superficial criteria. Is the big mac a really good burger?

I was a Nikon guy, so forgive my bias.

Have you ever heard of the Nikon EM ?, Big Mac, that's exactly what the A series Canons were a money spinner at a very difficult time for the company which probably saved it, and enabled them to recoup some of the enormous 10 year R&D costs of their flagship New F1 because if the industry in general had to rely on the tiny proportion the comparative sales of professional cameras are to the "Big Mac" cameras that they manufacture, they would have all gone bust years ago.

 

[Mackinaw]

People forget the impact Canon A-series cameras had on 35mm photography back in the 1970's and 1980's. The AE-1 was a revolutionary camera, not so much for its features, but for it's assembly techniques. Having a mini-computer control the timing of the shutter/mirror/aperture stop-down mechanisms, allowed Canon to eliminate about 1/3rd of production costs from a camera. Before the AE-1, these functions were all done mechanically, which necessitated a lot of hand adjustments (expensive!).

Actually, Canon just beat everybody to the punch. If they hadn't introduced the A-series high-tech materials/assembly techniques in 1976, somebody else would have done so a few year later. The fact is that the cost of labor in Japan rose by about 35% over a few years in the mid-1970's, making the old-fashioned way of assembling camera just too expensive. Canon just got there first.

All this being said, I, personally, don't like the A-series cameras. Too plasticky for my tastes. I much prefer my old F-1 and FP.

Jim B.

 

[frank]

I think that the Canon EF, Pentax ES, and Minolta XK all predate the canon ae1 with electronic timing.

http://minolta.eazypix.de/slrtable/

 

[AgX]

The AE-1 was the first camera with digitized controls.