I have been having a blast with this camera. While I love my Nikon gear, and shooting in shutter priority does take getting used to, the exposure meter, I find, is incredibly accurate. And the FD glass, well, it's truly spectacular. I hesitate to say it's better than Nikon? But, right up there with my Minolta Rokkor glass as maybe the best 35mm glass I've ever used. Thoughts?
I've got a large Canon FD collection. Bodies include the T90, F1N and A-1. I also own prime lenses from 20 - 500 mirror lens. I find the Canon glass is equally as good as the Nikon's. When you are done shooting film you need to pick up a Canon FD to Nikon AIS adapter and use the lenses on your Nikon bodies. That's how I use the mirror lens. The mirror lens is very sharp. Here's an example:
Canon's FD lenses were very good and a match overall to Nikon's of that time. I never found one line-up to be better than the other; you have to compare individual lenses. Even then, they were awfully close. The same is true today.
David- I believe all of the 50mm f/1.4's have the Super Spectra Coating (SSC), while the 1.8's have the standard SC Spectra Coating. All of the FDn (New) lenses have the SSC, with the sole exception of the 50 1.8, which was a kit lens at the time.
The first camera I bought new with my own money was a Canonet GIII.
In the 1980's, Canon "won" the consumer battle with marketing, but after stripping away all of the "image is everything" hype, they had a solid product line. At the time, the only clear advantage I saw for Nikon was in flash technology. Nikon made its own glass, true, but for any lens I could dream of affording it made very little difference.
Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta also made competitive manual gear in that era. I ended up with Nikon by happenstance; the woman I was dating at the time shot Nikon .
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck