|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Gear Question
I use Canon AE-1 which has FD mount lenses. Someone tells me that it isn't any good... I thought my images usually turn out really good. I've never thought anything was really wrong with them. Am I in need of an upgrade? A certain "someone" also informed me that to be taken seriously by models and people in this field, you have to have a "black camera" cause it looks more professional. I happen to hate all black cameras. Mine is silver and black. So now I'm not professional? I don't know whether or not to take this persons comments as a complete joke or not. I know FD is an older lens, and I know with newer glass my images would probably come out a lot better... Any thoughts? Nov 20 05 03:05 pm Link Robert_Vega wrote: I wonder what they would think of my 70 yr old Agfa folding camera? The are full of horseshack.... Nov 20 05 03:08 pm Link Good technique is more important than specific equipment, except in extreme cases. Canon FD lenses are fine, although I would recommend sticking with primes rather than zooms. If you want to upgrade, go to medium format rather than just moving across to another 35mm system. Medium format kits are a steal right now, thanks to digital! The comment about camera color is just silly. Nov 20 05 03:09 pm Link There are tons of great FD lenses as well as poor quality FD lenses, just as there are great EF lenses and lousy EF lenses. There are still thousands of photographers making fabulous photos with AE-1s and FD lenses. And silver vs. black...it really doesn't matter, though some people will judge you for it--like your "friend". You just have to how that your clients aren't similarly prejudiced. (I wonder what that person thinks of these:  )Nov 20 05 03:10 pm Link Photographers, at least pro photographers shooting editorial, candid, documentary, and war coverage generally opt for all black bodies to minimize any chance of reflections bouncing off their cameras. Not good to alert a sniper with a stray reflection.  So it caught on that pros used "only" black bodies, and the cameras that had some silvery chrome parts were strictly for amateurs. Hogwash! The cameras work the same, and your results will be just as good as those "pros" with all black bodies. Old Canon glass is great stuff, too, even though I am a Nikon fan. Keep that camera! It is well-built, and can function even if the meter battery dies. That's a good camera to always have in your bag. Take the advice of others: if you WANT to improve the quality of the negatives, invest in medium format equipment. It won't improve your technique, for that will be the same no matter what camera you use ~ and will improve with every shot you take. Nov 20 05 03:17 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: This person would like to have one of those! Nov 20 05 03:17 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Drool! Nov 20 05 03:19 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Yeah, I'd lose an arm for a couple of those Nov 20 05 03:21 pm Link William Herbert wrote: That person is not alone. Nov 20 05 03:30 pm Link Well, duh, everyone knows that cameras which are all black create better photographs. Photographers know this. Models know this. Clients certainly know this. And if any of them find out that you shot those images of yours with a camera that wasn't black, they'll immediately know that your images aren't any good (even if they liked them at first). And, yknow, I'll be happy to take that silver&black camera off your hands since it won't be doing you any good anyhow. Y'know, out of the kindness of my heart... Your images look great, no matter what you used to capture them. Or what color it was, for that matter. This "someone" was feeding you a bowl-full of nonsense. Your photos makes you look more professional than your equipment will. Nov 20 05 03:45 pm Link gracias. Nov 20 05 03:50 pm Link Robert_Vega wrote: Yeah, this is definitely true. I know that the only people in my industry that I take seriously are the conformist masses who constantly imitate each other and follow each other around like a herd of sheep, never having had an original thought in their lives. And amongst all those in the herd, the ones that I take the most seriously, those standing at the utter pinnacle of credibility, are bigots who judge cameras by the color of their skin. Nov 20 05 06:40 pm Link SGS wrote: One of the advantages of a silver camera is that in hot sun the camera does not overheat, and damage the film. Nov 20 05 08:47 pm Link One photography instructor I once had said that a camera is nothing but a box that holds your film, and that the lens is the much more crucial component. Or something like that. And he was right. If someone is looking at one of your prints, there is no way they can tell what kind of camera you used to create it. The primary difference between the older Canon FD mount and the newer Canon EF mount is auto-focus. All of the FD lenses, and the cameras that they were built for, are manual focus lenses. Both Canon and Nikon switched to auto-focus in the mid-1980s. Nikon chose to use the same mount, which allows current Nikon bodies to use older manual-focus Nikon lenses. At the time, it was a good move, because it didn't force Nikon shooters to replace all of their lenses at once. They could continue to use their old lenses (albeit without auto-focus). Canon went the other route. When they switched to auto-focus, they designed a new lens mount (EF), which was incompatible with all the old FD lenses. History lesson aside, the AE-1 is a perfectly serviceable film body, and the better FD lenses are every bit as good optically as the better EF mount lenses of today. Both lens mounts have a wide range of lenses, some of which have better optics than others (I wouldn't give you $5 for a "new" Canon kit zoom lens that they sell with the Rebel). There are still excellent quality FD lenses available on eBay or KEH. When people are contemplating hiring me (or working with me), they are usually more concerned with the quality and creativity of my photography. Only rarely does anyone even ask what kind of camera I use, and most couldn't care less, as long as I can give them the kind of photos they want. This reminds me of when the first Digtial Rebel came out a year or so ago, and one well known reviewer panned it because it had a silver finish instead of a black finish, complaining that it looked too amateur. A friend of mine even hesitated to buy one because of this. I told him that it had exactly the same sensor as the 10D and that the images were completely indistinguishable from that of a 10D. Unless he needed a feature of the 10D that was not available on the D-Rebel, then it was silly to avoid the D-Rebel because it was silver. It's just paint. Personally, I'd like my next one in purple, please. :-) Nov 20 05 11:54 pm Link Robert_Vega wrote: Well, if they give you what you want, no. You don't need an upgrade. I know FD is an older lens, and I know with newer Maybe. It would depend on your current lenses and the newer ones you shifted to. Few of the EOS primes are less sharp than their FD equivalents, and most are somewhat more resistant to flare, but there's no substantial improvement in general for the primes. Zooms are mostly better if you get L lenses, even if your FD zooms are L's, but not as much for the common FD equivalents; EOS simply has a larger choice of zooms. Nov 21 05 02:05 am Link Robert_Vega wrote: No! Nov 21 05 09:22 am Link so there isn't much of a difference between the FD and EF mounts? Because, personally, I hate auto-focus lenses. Dos... prime meaning??? a set lens, like 50mm? I have the 50mm, 35-105mm (something like that) 70-210mm the 2x extender and extension tubes....... Nov 21 05 11:50 am Link Robert_Vega wrote: Prime = not zoom. So the 50mm is prime. the 35-105 is zoom. Nov 21 05 12:09 pm Link Robert_Vega wrote: I wonder if "someone" thinks that the Hasselblad H1 is not a 'professional' camera because of its champaign paint job..... Nov 21 05 03:38 pm Link |
