Although there are cheap converters now available to mount FD lenses on the EOS M. I know, I've got one, and as long as you're happy with manual focus, it's not a bad option - the FD 100mm f2.8 is great on the M, as it's suitably compact and optically pretty decent.
Cheap converter. Cheap optics. Why bother? And the user hasn't specified which glass is part of the package.
Does he even have an M?
The point I'm making is a general one, that the M makes FD lenses significantly less obsolete than they were before (as do many other compact system cameras that also have FD adaptors). Why? Because the back focus is shorter than the FD mount, so they don't actually need optics - they're simply a tube with mounts at each end, so the only key point is to make the tube the right length. No optical loss, and FD mount lenses are incredibly cheap for the quality - so that's why bother.
I absolutely loathed and detested my FM2, one of the nastiest film cameras I've ever used. Quite apart from the irrational Nikon direction of mounting and focusing, it just felt horrid. Incidentally, I loved the FE.
And yet one of Nikons best selling cameras, through the three main FM incarnations. I actually prefered the FA, rounder, nicer controls. But the FM2 has a better shutter, and is a more recent camera than the FA, which was has difficult to fix electronics. I personally loath and detest the awful FD mount, especially the breech lock versions. And I felt any Canon between the F-1 and the 1v has felt cheap next to equivalent Nikons. And I am a canon guy through and through.
Whereas I would say that every* Nikon in that period felt agricultural and nasty compared to all the Canon equivalents - not got many Nikons left, just the F2A and F90X, but i still have one of each F1 model, and I can't honestly see how anyone could honestly say they feel cheaper than the F2 - throw the Photomic prism into the mix, and the Canons are significantly more robust IMHO.
* I certainly grant that the EOS 5 is much cheaper feeling than the F90X, although the EOS is much more usable.
In some cases, but it's easily fixed in most cases
Yeah, but why buy something that you're probably going to have to get fixed? The shutter had this problem on 9 out of 10 A1s Av1's and AE1s that I saw in my camera shop days.
Well none of my A series (I've at least one of each) has the cough - one of my A1s did, but I fixed it myself, it's not hard. Still, I agree that it makes no sense to by an infected one despite that - I only bought it for the lens and motordrive with it, to be honest.
[ made by cosina
No, that was the T60.
IF YOU WANT THAT MANUAL FEELING BUY NIKON (or Pentax K)
Well that's one point of view, but not one I would completely agree with. I prefer most A series bodies to any Nikon, if only for the mounting and focusing direction issues, with the A1 being an absolute classic and one of the most enjoyable cameras I've ever used.
It's great this marketplace of ideas. Yours is also one point of view. As I'm sure that anybody can read had already worked out. But thanks.[/quote]
Yes, it is - and no less valid than yours, and in at least one area, that of FD to EF-M mount converters, better informed.
On reflection, you are right. The OP should go ahead and buy a bunch of mediocre FD gear that isn't collectable, that requires the use of coke bottle glass adaptors, instead of similar gear which is more compatable and will retain some value.
Now you're just being silly as well as wrong on the adaptor front. I certainly wouldn't recommend this particular deal, nor a T50 to anyone but a completist collector - it's an appalling camera, and the EX EE isn't exactly that exciting, but an A1 gives such a different experience to any EOS it's well worth a try - as someone else has says, they're certainly cheap enough.
In terms of using film,I personally can't be bothered with a film EOS any more - yes, they're convenient and excellent, but I would rather use digital. My use of film these days is for the experience of using older cameras. A good A1 is incredibly smooth, sounds good and is capable of great results, and doesn't cost the sort of silly money a Nikon FM2 does (comparatively) - that's the flip side of retained value.