« G9 vs. E-M1 II | Main | People Like Leicas »

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Comments

Vale Canon film cameras! I repaired Olympus OM series for twenty years, and knew a few independent repairers here in Australia. -- most reported that the very few Canon F1 cameras they ever had in for repair( they never broke!) were exceptionally well made...to compete with the Nikon F at pro level. Their FD lenses were absolutely at the top of the game.. I remember seeing an advertisement for the 300mm f2.8 showing Henry Kissinger (?) reading a document marked "Top Secret" taken from a long distance where it was possible to read the very grainy text ,--I bet that sold a lot of Canons! Then, of course in an extraordinarily brave commercial decision, they more-or-less abandoned their FD mount fans and developed the EOS totally incompatible system. The rest, as they say, is history. The EOS lenses autofocussed faster than the Nikon system, especially for sports photography, and they moved to digital seamlessly. I had an FTb for its solidity before my love affair with Olympus started, but the lenses were rather expensive here in Australia.Yes, Vale Canon film cameras.

Ironically, I'd decided that my next camera will be...

a film camera...

made by Canon...

between 1958 and 1961 when they were at their prime.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Canon_p01.jpg

That's the Canon P, a very nice thread mount rangefinder. Combine it with one of the many glorious 50mm lenses made for that mount (I'm partial to the Canon 50/1.8 & the Summitar 50/2) and it's still a fine machine.

Sometimes the strangest items appear on the "used" shelf of one's
local pawn shop. A year or more has passed since a Nikon F6 was seen with a very low price tag. Being a Nikon man looked at it and figured, why not? A hybrid more mechanical than digital with cross- pollination in places, the C$175.00 seemed low yet even as a shelf queen it would be good to have. My own F100 was getting tired and an alternate body would be good. So far have not been disappointed. Works with my Nikkor lensees and aside from body weight does the job. If and when it dies, it will be stuffed and mounted.
Bye the bye, Canon were latecomers to Canada, Nikon and others were well established many years prior. Nikon was it, and I have stayed unlike those who've switched to Canon. Like an automobile, you're a Ford or a Chevy man, both do the same thing, ditto cameras.

I've always wanted one great Canon film body, just because - it wouldn't be a practical acquisition, more of a fetish for things I couldn't afford in my youth. (When I want to run heavy silver based iron, I usually grab one of my F2/F3/F4/F5 fleet.) I always thought a 1V would be overkill but otherwise ideal. I should probably cast my gaze at a F1n instead, or even a clean T90 (if such a thing still exists in the wild.)

One of my first cameras was a cheap Canon rangefinder I bought around 1970 from a GI who'd just got back from Vietnam. I've often wished I'd hung onto it, for sentimental value if nothing else. But it took surprisingly good photos, many of which I still have and look at from time to time. Hearing this news - coupled with the fact that my sixty-fourth birthday is coming up next week - makes me feel truly old.

It's kind of like Canon no longer makes cameras, then...right? Maybe the definition has been stretched to now include camera-shaped computers about which you can talk using much of the same photographic vocabulary.
I understand Canon's "decision" and find no fault in it. People like me and smarter and better than I may moan for a minute, but Canon can't keep making what has long stopped selling. Is Canon still making cameras, is the question, and digital converts will say of course, and I wouldn't argue, but the difference inside is way bigger and more important than the shell.

The Nikon F6 still seems available, which is interesting in itself. Maybe the heritage weighs stronger on Nikon leadership?

I recall buying this camera in 2000 only to then quickly switch to the first digital Canon a year later which was the Canon D30 at 3.1 megapixels
It cost twice as much, say $2,500 which in 2001 dollars would be say $6,000 today?
That to be able to buy the EOS 1v eighteen years later is amazing.

I still own its predecessor, the Canon EOS 1n. It has seldom if ever let me down and has paid for itself many times over. There are a few drawbacks though. It's built like a brick and feels just as heavy. Noisy too. The high-pitched whine of the built-in winder announces its presence assertively. There are few cameras better for making oneself look like a Serious Photographer though.

Canon has kept that well honed ergonomic design for photogrpaher’s hands right up to the 5Dmkiv. But has alos retained that awful green and black lcd on top. I think that speaks volumes about Canon.

This is still my main camera, as of course the latest canon lenses are fully compatible. However digital came too soon, for while more "metalic" than its predecessors EOS1 and EOS1n, there is still a lot of plastic. The EOS1z would have been the ultimate Canon film camera! Also, cosmetically, they don't wear well. So if you want a keeper Canon classic go for the F-1N. All metal, all class.

i have been using canon camera.I love the quality

The comments to this entry are closed.