8.23.2022

Nostalgia. Not all it's cracked up to be. Looking at the Canon FTb QL.

A shutter noise like the pounding of metal garbage can lids and minor explosions.

I had such great memories about my early film days in general and the Canon cameras I used in particular. At the time the cameras seemed almost magical. Robust, quick to operate and satisfying to have in one's hands. Then came all the ensuing years of AF film SLRs which atrophied many peoples' abilities to manual focus lenses at all. After that came digital cameras with quieter shutters, endless potential frames, instant feedback, higher sharpness and ample resolution. But I never thought about those progressive changes until I confronted them last week. My nostalgia got head-butted by reality. 

I'd ordered an inexpensive 1970's era, manual SLR mostly just to get the lens that came bundled with it. I like the lens a lot. It's a Canon 50mm f1.4 FD lens and it's tons of fun to shoot with. The colors and tonalities of the files it creates are different from contemporary lenses and fuel a healthy nostalgia for one version of how images looked back in earlier times. With a good adapter the lens becomes more or less transparent to use. Almost.

But not so with the camera body. Oh...I've forgotten so much.

The FTb QL was a very popular SLR for Canon. It was the step-up camera from the very, very rudimentary Canon TX. While the TX topped out at 1/500th of a second the shutter in the FTb soared all the way up to 1/1000th of a second. The model I just received was the second version of the FTb which had a badge on the front reading, "QL." That stood for quick load. It has a mechanism that allowed one to put the film leader over a sprocket and then a spring loaded plate came down to hold the film in place while the back of the camera was closed. On the TX you have to finagle the end of the film into a slot, hold the film with one finger while you wound a bit on and gingerly closed the back, then said a little prayer to the camera gods asking that the film would not slip out of the slot and fail to go through the camera. A failing you generally discovered when you started wondering if Kodak had really started to put 50 or 60 exposures on a roll instead of the usual 36.... The QL function saved a lot of newbies a lot of embarrassment and ego-shattering failure...at least when it came to getting the film installed. 

The FTb, like most bigger cameras of the time, was built like an absolute tank. Not a Russian tank, the pentaprisms don't tend to fly off,  but more like one of those really cool Swedish tanks. Solid metal everywhere and all the weight that goes with it. 

I would call all of these earlier cameras semi-automatic because, with a matched, branded lens you could actually meter an exposure. And the exposure was pretty much in the ball park ... if you aimed it at the right target. In my mind, at least back then, a fully manual camera was something like a Leica M4 or M3, or a non-metered prism Nikon F. You had to figure out your exposures on your own with one of those non-metered bodies. With the FTb you could set the ASA (now ISO), watch a needle move in the finder and try to match up the needle with a lollipop/indicator that was hooked up to the aperture to that needle. If everything lined up you were probably going to get somewhere in the ballpark with your film shots. 

These old cameras charge the shutter when you use the film wind lever to move the film to the next frame. In fact, when you wind on to the next frame a whole series of things happen. The shutter curtain returns to its ready position, the mirror spring is tensioned and the camera waits breathlessly for your next move. 

And you can do all these things for days, months and years without ever needing a battery. No need to plug in a USB 3 cable. No auxiliary battery pack needed. In fact, the only thing the small, mercury battery ever did was to make the meter work. That's it. And now, since mercury batteries were outlawed in most countries about 40 years ago you'll need to find a silver oxide replacement and recalibrate your metering system for the camera. It's easier just to either memorize the most useful, general exposures for the film you like best or to buy and learn to use an external light meter. 

I thought for a while (a day or two) that I'd enjoy buying a dozen rolls of film and trying my hand at the craft as I had practiced it in my youth. I checked on the price of Tri-X film and almost fell off my chair. It's between $12 and $14 a roll, depending on the snootiness of your retailer, and that doesn't include processing or printing. Here in Austin, done right, I'd have to drop about $25 just to buy, process and contact print one roll of film. To revisit the darkroom I ended up working in would mean re-buying a Leica V35 enlarger, sodium vapor safelights, a couple thousand dollars worth of plumbing, etc. I started to realize the folly of even thinking about it especially since I'm very happy making black and white images with my digital cameras, along with a little nudge from Lightroom.

But the final blow to my own nostalgia came when I operated the film wind lever, pulled the camera up to my eye, tried to frame something through the dark and dingy viewfinderfinder and then, with much anticipation, fired off the shutter. I had completely forgotten just how loud, how harsh and how kinetic those old cameras were in actual use. There's no way I'd put up with that now. In fact, I should probably go and have my hearing checked after having clicked off the shutter ten or twenty times in a short session of cameras induced time travel. 

It reminded me that doctors in the 1970s were still working with re-useable syringe needles back then. Cars belched smoke with abandon and without the benefit of catalytic converters, people smoked in airplanes and hospitals, and railed against having to use seatbelts in their automobiles. I'll now add loud, busy cameras to that list. 

It was fun back then because I didn't know any better but from my perch here in the future I can only feel pity for the photographers of that age. Who, of course, were busy pitying those older photographers carrying around Graflex cameras and flashbulbs, and those few were just glad not to be coating their own plates. And those plate coaters were happy not to stand over a steaming mercury bath to finish out their work. And accelerate their mortality...

Be careful what you wish for...you might get it. It might be attached to that cool lens you thought you wanted it. Almost sounds like the lyrics in "For the Roses" by Elvis Costello...

So there is my modern day assessment of the Canon FTb and its ilk. Take it with a grain of salt.

Wrapping my brain around just how cool I thought 1/1,000th of a second on 
a shutter speed dial seemed back in the middle of the 1970s. 

A massive move forward. The quick load mechanism.

And in several places on the camera are little signs instructing the user in how to
take advantage of these modern engineering breakthroughs. 

Anybody need a decent FTb body? Let me know....

 

27 comments:

MikeR said...

Paris, 2000: an anti-fossil fuel street parade/protest I took shot after shot with my Canon SLR, convinced I had at least a couple of keepers. As the last of it passed by, I glanced at the counter ... the film had not latched onto the take-up reel.

Anonymous said...

On my Nikon FM, I learned to watch the rewind knob as I advanced the film to Frame 1. If it moved, all was well. Otherwise, start over.

I still have the camera -- it makes a nice shelf decoration.


DavidB

crsantin said...

Re-useable needles...yikes. I still have a few film cameras kicking around but I'm thinking it's time to move them on to those masochists who still shoot film in 2022. Love my digital cameras, never going back.

EdPledger said...

Heavy, solid, loud…exactly. Whether it’s a Canon FTb or Nikkormat, those enthusiast cameras were beasts. I laugh at the folks trying to trim 20 grams from their kit for hiking; take a Topcon Super D with the 58mm f1.4 and quit whining. Man up.

Film has certainly inflated…supply and demand, plus costs for emulsion ingredients. Guess I am happy to have several 100’ rolls in the freezer along with a couple dozen rolls of 120. One of these days will have to thaw some out and go for a ride on the nostalgia bus. Fortunately have all the darkroom equipment in storage also along with a small supply of paper. Might be fun. Have been meaning to do that for about 10 yrs. But digital has me addicted, and I can’t shake the habit.

JC said...

Just because the film slipped out of the winder, not all was lost. In 1970, many (most?) colleges were shut down by protests after the Kent State killings by the National Guard. As was the U. of Iowa, where I was working on the college paper and a master's degree in journalism. I learned from somebody that the local Guard had been called out to a fairground to prepare for possible duty at the Iowa protects. I rushed out with my Pentax Spotmatic and got there in time to see a bayonet drill, of which I shot the requisite 36 frames. Er, minus 35. The thing is, I apparently got the end of the film in the slot, closed the back, and actually wound on a couple before the film either popped loose...or something...and began to slip. When I developed the roll, I had one exposure, and very mild one at that, rather than the bayonet drill. We ran it, because that was all we had on the local Guard, but it sucked, and I never again made that mistake (always watch to see if the winder is turning, as DavidB already mentioned, and that you can feel the film drag.) I believe, but I'm not sure because I'm not that interested in cameras per se, that there are some digital cameras with which you can get a couple of exposures saved without a card being inserted. Some kind of internal memory. If true, it seems to me that would just set you up for the same kind of error with a digital camera.

kodachromeguy@bellsouth.net said...

What a beautiful piece of mechanical engineering ingenuity and excellence. Go ahead, use it. Try some Fuji Acros and scan the negatives at high resolution. You'll be amazed how much data is on those frames.

b.t@gmail.com said...

I'd like to put in a plug for the Olympus OM-1 that I used & loved.

Beautiful lenses, excellent mechanicals, whisper-quiet shutter and a super-bright viewfinder w/ replaceable glass focusing screens.

Of all the old cameras I don't now have, that's the one I fancy having back. Except for the $20 film, processing, enlarger, print dryer, only 36 shots?...

John Taylor said...

I have a silver FTb and that same 50mm 1.4. The last time I shot film with that kit I spoke a horse rather badly with the shutter clack/ mirror slap. My original F1 which was stolen back in '79 or '80 and I still miss was quieter as I recall, but…

John Taylor said...

that of course should read spooked. Sigh

JB said...

I still have a Pentax ME super with 50mm/1.7 lens which is no longer in working condition. It is a beautiful and elegant piece of industrial design (IMO) which modern cameras come nowhere near matching. The finder is big and bright, at least with the f/1.7 lens attached. If I can persuade the shutter to cock with multiple strokes of the winding lever, I can fire it and listen to the clang of the mechanical shutter and the mirror.

It now makes a shelf ornament and reminds me of my youthful enthusiasm for picture-taking. Functionally the modern M43 gear (similar in size to the old Pentax M kit) is far, far better and the results are technically in a different league.

Anonymous said...

An enlarger safelights, plumbing? No longer needed! Nowadays, film enthusiasts scan their negatives with digital cameras and convert them to positives with Negative Lab Pro, a Lightroom plugin. An inverted tripod column, a macro lens, a film holder and a tablet or mobile phone as back light source is what you would need.

Anonymous said...

Or go with an all in one solution: the Skier Negative Copy Box 3

Gato said...

I enjoyed this. I still have my first FTb somewhere in a closet and have absolutely zero desire to ever use it again. Those old Canons made me a nice living for quite a few years, but they were far from elegant.

Another memory from those days was being on a first name basis with the techs at Canon Professional Services when they had a shop in Dallas. It took a lot of TLC to keep my mechanical F-1 bodies going.

FWIW, if I were ever going to shoot film I'd do 4x5 in a view camera, tray develop, then either scan or contact print. I could improvise a darkroom in a closet, just as I did in my earliest days, and probably get prints almost as nice as I get now from m4/3.

Unknown said...

"With a good adapter..." and therein lies the rub. Have you tried enough to have opinions on which ones fall into this category? Those would truly be valuable insights. I have my opinions, but would love to have yours and I would imagine a significant number of your readers would too. No sense in all of us starting from scratch in our search. This forum would be a great place for us all to compare notes.

Dogman said...

...and my Nikon F2 bodies remain in the closet. The original F bodies were stolen 40+ years ago and I do not plan to re-buy them.

dinksdad said...

About 75 percent of the time when I got film back from a processor I was disappointed in the results. Not having that problem with digital. Nor can I relate to people who get excited about film grain. It's great that many of the old film-era lenses are still usable.

Chris Beloin said...

Greetings Kirk -

That brings back memories. My first SLR camera was a Canon FTB with a 50mm 1.8. It was a beast but really got me going on photography. I moved onto a Nikon FM which was certainly more refined.

I am collecting some cameras for my display area and would be happy to give your canon a new home. I'll pay shipping and for the camera as well. If you have any canon mount lens to go with it that would be great too. Let me know.

Thanks - Chris in Wisconsin

karmagroovy said...

You can't expect all of those modern day creature comforts when you go down the nostalgia road. Instead of the "Model A" FTB, maybe an EOS model would have made the trip a bit less bumpy?

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

"An enlarger safelights, plumbing? No longer needed! Nowadays, film enthusiasts scan their negatives with digital cameras and convert them to positives with Negative Lab Pro, a Lightroom plugin. An inverted tripod column, a macro lens, a film holder and a tablet or mobile phone as back light source is what you would need."

Dear unknown. You seem to forget that I've been on this thrill ride we call commercial photography for four+ decades. I've done the traditional darkroom, the dedicated consumer film scanner (Nikon LS-4000) route, the drum scan route, even the Epson flatbed scanner route (V-700) and have written here about "camera" scanning negatives and slides, etc. The one thing you miss is an appreciation for the actual look and feel of really excellent, double weight printing paper like Agfa Bravura and Seagull Portrait. Even Ektalure in the G surface. If one was going to all the trouble to shoot film I'd assume it would be in order to print it on wonderful emulsion rich photographic paper. I guess only the Digi-Kinder who've never tasted photographic perfection would be sated by the weak brew that is digital scanning plus ink jet printing. None for me thanks.

Once you've tasted perfectly brewed, freshly roasted and ground coffee you'll never want to move on to Sanka.

bikenerd said...

Having recently been dragged down the film rabbit hole by a friend (half my age), I'm really enjoying it. The expense is slightly painful, I seem to be paying a little more than you here in Sacramento. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I currently have 5 cameras loaded with 4 different film stocks. My main squeeze is a Nikon F3HP with a 55mm f/1.2 holy hand grenade of a lens. Relative to my M43 Olympus cameras, I enjoy the substantial feel and the sensation of operating a piece of machinery rather than an electronic device. It's like a 70s Mercedes vs. a modern Honda.

Now if Kodak would only make more Ektar so I can find it locally...

Roger Jones said...

You should watch the Movie, Midnight in Paris. It's all about this very topic, the good old days, the old ways. It all depends on your point of view.

The old cameras and the old photographers set the standard for today's "photographers". They got the job done. It was about getting the image not the gear, like to group.

If you could only have one Leica, would it be the CL or the SL??

Roger

Roger Jones said...

You should watch the Movie, Midnight in Paris. It's all about this very topic, the good old days, the old ways. It all depends on your point of view.

The old cameras and the old photographers set the standard for today's "photographers". They got the job done. It was about getting the image not the gear, like to group.

If you could only have one Leica, would it be the CL or the SL??

Roger

Gordon Lewis said...

Back during my days as a pro photographer, film SLRs were practically forbidden in courtrooms, during wedding ceremonies, or on movie sets -- anyplace where their raucous clatter would be distracting. On more than a few such occasions I had to rent a "blimp": a bulky, custom-fitted, soundproofed enclosure for whatever camera body, motor drive, and lens I was using. Compare that to a modern mirrorless camera with an electronic shutter and there's no doubt that "the good old days" are more old than good.

Eric said...

If it's super noisy maybe the mirror bumper foam needs replacing. Easy job but I'm sure your not interested.

Personally I love the sound of a good film slr. So many memories! Most of them good btw.

Kodak Medalist dbl weight paper was my favorite for printing portraits. Agfa. Seagull or Forte for everything else.

I still have and use a fully equipped darkroom. It's my sanity room.

Eric

Mitch said...

I had a particular, hard wired way of holding my film cameras to load them (Nikon FM> FM2> F3HP> F3P> F5> F100) that meant I got somewhere between 1 and 2 frames, every time, of my left foot. For about two decades, thousands and thousands of frames on both neg and slide. Musing that I should have saved them all.

Oh and Ilford Galerie for me. Occasionally selenium toned.

Walter said...

I loved the FTb. It was my second SLR after the FT-QL I got from my uncle, which started me in 35mm interchangeable lens cameras. I believe I would say that the FT was the precursor to the FTb, not the TX.

Pale Fire said...

JB and I seem to have travelled a similar path, although my Pentax ME is still working (and I'm still using it). Lovely bright viewfinder, small, portable, nice haptics - it effectively put me off all other slr's (including DSlrs) until m43 came along to offer a similarly small and tactile experience.

The shutter sound of both give a lovely, discrete 'snick'.

When I want to feel all conspicuous I dust off the Bronica... Heheheh

Mark

Post a Comment

We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.