Canon A1?

Some cameras are out of calibration and you never know, perhaps a camera that gives poor exposures might be messed up inside. I have generally had good exposures from mine. My first Nikon FA had exposure issues, second is better


Typos made on a tiny phone...

Whatever you call it, my A-1 has a strong central area with two f/stops of emphasis right around the focusing spot/microprism area. I just put up a light bulb in the darkroom and aimed at the bulb, noting f/stop as I moved around.

There is an odd cat-eye right included in the central spot, and a strong bottom-emphasis.

I don't know if the cat-eye is an alignment error in my specific camera but if not, it fits the idea that maybe the pattern was designed to be useful for horizontal and vertical orientation assuming you turn the camera clockwise for verticals.

"Bill, the A-1 is NOT centre weighted, but button weighted, that's the reason why it takes pics like that and being automatic you can't even compensate.

What's button weighted?"

Having little to do at the moment, I checked on the attached link to find out about "Button weighted," a term that befuddled me, too. Turns out it is a typo. One writer on the Pentax site talks about the A-1 being "BOTTOM weighted", and then in a reply, a second writer mistakes it for "BUTTON weighted", which is, of course, nonsensical.

The Canon A-1 meter pattern is bottom weighted, to compensate for the brightness of the sky in shots of scenery.

cuthbert said:

Bill, the A-1 is NOT centre weighted, but button weighted, that's the reason why it takes pics like that and being automatic you can't even compensate.

Most of my cameras are average centre weighted and the A-1 is the only one that makes pics like that. The other samples are from a K2DMD which is average centred.

Click to expand...

The A-1 is center weighted, not bottom-weighted. The Canon EF *is* bottom weighted and this is stated on the manual.

The A-1 is center weighted as stated on the manual and as tested on some magazine test (Modern Photography, i believe).

It seems that Canon abandoned bottom-weighted metering after the Canon EF (1973.)

BTW, I'd rather rely on the camera manual and/or a camera test, than in the opinion of a photographer, no matter how good the photographer is. I've met some pro photographers that got it all wrong regarding such kind of finer details. Otherwise, of course, very fine photographers.

I owned and used an A-1 for many many years, i used it as my main camera when I used to work as a pro; some pictures got sold and/or published in newspapers and on some audio CDs.

I always found the metering 100% reliable. Of course, it helps to **actually read the instruction manual (RTFM) ** because it explains precisely when to compensate exposure (i.e. +1 stop, -1 stop, etc) depending on the subject brightness and composition.

Once you follow said instructions, the metering is extremely reliable and I have used it at very difficult conditions; for example in dimly-lit jazz clubs where there were extreme contrasts and exposure called for 1/30th, f1.2 with ISO 1600 film.

cuthbert said:

Thank you for your condescending post and the way you are lecturing me on how cool this camera is and how incapable as photographer I am, I think you missed the point in which I stated I own several Canons, to be precise a '75 Ftb, a '77 F-1 Old, a '82 F-1 New with standard prism, a '84 F-1 with AE prism and a '87 T90.

None of these cameras made pictures as bad as the A-1

Click to expand...

Perhaps your A-1 needs meter recalibration.

I have owned (or own) the AE-1, A-1, F-1 old, EF, F-1N and the "LA Olympics 1984" F-1N. All of them had very reliable meters, no problem with them.
I agree with your post that places the F-1N in #1 place; it is that good.

Jeez, I still shoot with my FTQL.

Quirky, yes, but like any camera, get to know it. It's so bulky and retro, kinda love it.

All the Cannon A series cameras in existence are at least 27 years old and considering they were mass produced consumer grade cameras they have all in all done very well, I owned an A1 for more than 20 years that I bought second hand and it always worked faultlessly, I had it CLA'd a couple of years ago had the light seals replaced and gave it to my niece to photograph her children with and it's still going strong.

flavio81,

The diagram I drew today was from my own measurements of my own A-1, and my diagram supports what some other sources have said: The A-1 evidently has a "bottom-centerweighted-average" type metering pattern.

cuthbert,

I don't think it is fair to condemn any camera for having a kind of averaging metering, if the camera can be set manually.

The first thing I recommend after realizing you don't like average results... is to get away from averaging metering and start to use a deliberate metering method (such as spotmetering or incident metering). When I find myself without a handheld meter and my only choice is to use a camera with an averaging meter to determine exposure, I use the palm of my hand: I simulate the reading I might get from an incident meter by metering the palm of my hand in light that is similar to the main subject and "opening up" one f/stop.

The Google books archive doesn't include the lab report on the A-1 which is in Popular Photography, Volume 86 Number 4; April 1979

But I found an article slightly later, about another Canon model. There are illustrations of the pattern "Center-bottom-weighted".

I would guess this is similar to the A-1 metering.

August 1982 Lab Report on Canon F-1

sdotkling said:

"Bill, the A-1 is NOT centre weighted, but button weighted, that's the reason why it takes pics like that and being automatic you can't even compensate.

What's button weighted?"

Having little to do at the moment, I checked on the attached link to find out about "Button weighted," a term that befuddled me, too. Turns out it is a typo. One writer on the Pentax site talks about the A-1 being "BOTTOM weighted", and then in a reply, a second writer mistakes it for "BUTTON weighted", which is, of course, nonsensical.

The Canon A-1 meter pattern is bottom weighted, to compensate for the brightness of the sky in shots of scenery.

Click to expand...

Thank you for recalling me that English is not my first language, first the other guy who lectures me on how a Tessar is not a triplet despite of the presence of three groups, then this guy who is trying to prove the A-1 is a great camera and I'm just an incapable photographer, then you that are calling my post nonsensical...very good environment.

flavio81 said:

BTW, I'd rather rely on the camera manual and/or a camera test, than in the opinion of a photographer, no matter how good the photographer is. I've met some pro photographers that got it all wrong regarding such kind of finer details. Otherwise, of course, very fine photographers.

Click to expand...

I rely on what I see with my own eyes, I shot 36 exposures with the A-1 and I haven't been satisfied, that's it. The only two pics that came out decently were as cooltouch expected two landscapes, this is one of them:



On the other side, this is a sample I've taken with my FTb:



This is another sample taken with my F-1 Old:



This is a shot taken with my T90:



This is a shot taken with my F-1 AE with AL screen:



This is my other F-1N with standard prism:



All bad pics? For the lightmeter out of tune, I don't think it might change the metering pattern.

M Carter said:

Jeez, I still shoot with my FTQL.

Quirky, yes, but like any camera, get to know it. It's so bulky and retro, kinda love it.

Click to expand...

Quirky? I find cameras like the Ftb, K1000, FM the easiest to use because you just have three controls and you go, the T90 is quirky to use at its full potential because it's a sophisticated machine. I like the Ftb, also because my F-1 Old with the 55 mm f1.2 lens is very heavy and I can't use for everyday shooting, the Ftb is big but not something as heavy as a F-1 old or F2 with f1.2 lens.

Bill Burk said:

The Google books archive doesn't include the lab report on the A-1 which is in Popular Photography, Volume 86 Number 4; April 1979

But I found an article slightly later, about another Canon model. There are illustrations of the pattern "Center-bottom-weighted".

I would guess this is similar to the A-1 metering.

August 1982 Lab Report on Canon F-1

Click to expand...

Interesting article, I've got one in pdf that reports the disassembly of a A-1 and states the metering pattern is centre, slightly button weighted, but I can't attach it to this post for unknown reasons, it's from 1979 and it also shows it's one of the first cameras with plastic covers.

I finish saying I don't condemn any camera, I just stated I don't like very much because the results I have seen on film are up to the standards of my other cameras, that's it. If you like the A-1 good for you, I'm not here to convince you it's a bad camera.

cuthbert said:

Thank you for recalling me that English is not my first language, first the other guy who lectures me on how a Tessar is not a triplet despite of the presence of three groups, then this guy who is trying to prove the A-1 is a great camera and I'm just an incapable photographer, then you that are calling my post nonsensical...very good environment.

Click to expand...

Hey cuthbert,

Though I am saying a lot, none of what I say is meant in an aggressive way. And I think sdotkling also meant nothing mean with the word nonsensical. Take that literally, we didn't understand the "button" pattern.

I'm also an incapable photographer, recall yesterday the story I told about missing the perfect moment which presented itself to me after I had put my camera away. At that point it wouldn't matter what kind of metering I was using...

http://jameskbeard.com/Photography/...S CAMERAS/A-1 Camera Owners Manual (1978).pdf

Here is a PDF on the A1 instruction manual. If you look at page 98 Canon describes it's metering pattern as Through-the-Lens Central Emphasis Metering. I'm guessing this is a bit like spot metering except the metering circle is larger, perhaps like a button.

Bill Burk said:

The Google books archive doesn't include the lab report on the A-1 which is in Popular Photography, Volume 86 Number 4; April 1979

But I found an article slightly later, about another Canon model. There are illustrations of the pattern "Center-bottom-weighted".

I would guess this is similar to the A-1 metering.

August 1982 Lab Report on Canon F-1

Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

Thank for this link, i own a F-1N and this is a great read.

I suspect the center-bottom-weighted pattern in the case of the F-1N is more a side effect of the way the metering is implemented (using the special focusing screen and beam splitter) than an intentional design...

If an old camera is bottom weighted what happens when you shoot a vertical? Is it side weighted? I know the newer cameras would change when you turned it on its side. But what about the old ones?

f/16 said:

If an old camera is bottom weighted what happens when you shoot a vertical? Is it side weighted? I know the newer cameras would change when you turned it on its side. But what about the old ones?

Click to expand...

Yep. Meter horizontally and turn to shoot.

Easy enough, you just have to be smarter than what you're working with, something that too often seems either impossible or at least too much trouble for many nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

An interesting discussion on the A-1 and since I was mentioned, I figured I should chime in. Pardon me while I blather on in reminiscence.

As to the A-1's metering pattern, I will defer to what is written in the manual. I no longer recall where I read that it had a bottom-centerweighted metering pattern, but that term has stayed with me for over 30 years. I just did a google search on it, and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the A-1's metering pattern is bottom-centerweighted.

It was encouraging to read about the faithful, long time users, pro and amateur, who have used the A-1 with such good results. Me, I've always had more of a love-hate relationship with the camera. I bought my first A-1 after owning my first real 35mm camera, an AE-1, for barely a year. My attitude at the time was that, if a little automation was a good thing, the a LOT of automation would be great! Fantastic! And for a while, I was totally in love with it, but the honeymoon was a brief one. I found from brutal experience that I had to be more disciplined regarding what was taking place on the screen, light-wise, or else my slides would suffer from the results. But it was still capable of handling complexly lit subjects, as long as the lighting was diffuse enough not to hit the meter with any hot spots.

Still, after a few more months of using the A-1 almost exclusively in a variety of venues and situations, I just felt I that I was missing something important. And that something was the underpinnings of photography that the A-1 so brilliantly hid from view. So, after reading a brief review in Modern Photography in a column where vintage gear was often discussed, and in which in this issue it was the FTb, I was fascinated by the old tech I was reading about. It occurred to me that maybe what I needed to do was take a big step back, and that's what I did. I picked up a clean FTb and also at the same time a very nice FL 35mm f/2.5 (still one of my favorite 35mm lenses of all time), and I fell in love all over again, but for this time, the right reasons. I also began to truly learn about the craft of photography, using this simple, yet very complete tool. And as it turned out, one of the features of the FTb I liked the best was the way it metered a scene. I quickly became a big fan of the 12% rectangle, and I've been a big fan of it ever since. Hey, if it works, you stay with it. It worked, so I've stayed with it -- for over 30 years.

About a year later, I bought my first old F-1. It was a beater -- I mean, it looked like somebody had used it as a hockey puck. But it was stone-cold reliable and dead-on accurate and I proceeded to use it heavily. I liked it so much, I bought another one a couple years later, just so I could have two of the same camera with two different types of film, if I chose to.

All during this time, though, I kept my A-1, and I even used it. But by that point I'd learned my lesson with regards to its meter, so I relegated it to "safe use" environments, since I shot slides exclusively. The A-1's meter was always accurate, but its metering pattern wasn't capable of staying within a slide's narrow latitude range, so I always had to be cautious how I used it. In fact, some of my best photos ever have been taken with the A-1.

Canon A-1, Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8, Kodachrome 64:



Here's an example of a slide that my A-1 underexposed somewhat, because of all the bright sky. Still, because of the strong subject matter and tight framing, even if the backside and the trees are in silhouette, it worked okay. I dodged the bullet, IOW.

Canon A-1, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Fujichrome 400:



Ever since I took my lens off the "A" setting the very first time on my AE-1, I've felt that the A-series Canons were handicapped when it came to trying to use them in manual mode. To me, it was inconvenient and distracting, having to remove my eye from the finder to adjust and/or check the aperture value on the lens. And once I saw how smoothly it operated on the FTb and later the F-1, I rarely felt the need to shoot with my A-1 in manual mode after that. So once I had a good, manual exposure SLR, I just let my A-1's automation do its thing. Most often I chose Aperture Priority or Program for my automation preferences.

Although in certain situations, shutter priority was preferred. I shot motorsports for a number of years, and one of the things I quickly learned was, for pan shots, I had to keep the shutter speeds low in order to blur the background and the wheels of the car. Typically no faster than 1/125. 1/60 was a good speed to use, I found. It rendered a good, pronounced pan, but the camera was still generally hand-holdable. And when it wasn't I used a monopod, not a tripod, for stability.

1986 IMSA race at Riverside International Raceway. Canon A-1, Canon nFD 200mm f/2.8, Kodachrome 64

So to paraphrase what other members here have said, the A-1 is a tool, and you learn what you need to use the tool to its optimum. I'll freely admit that I lost patience with it regarding certain aspects of its feature set, but I still used it for those things it was good at. And why not? It was a valuable resource that I had had customized to my preferences (I had Canon replace the split-image/microprism focusing screen with a plain matte one, and ever since I bought a Motor Drive MA for it, the drive never came off. It had become a permanent fixture, which I most often used in single shot mode so I didn't have to remove the camera from my eye to advance the film.

I sold that A-1 when I made a brief switch from Canon to Nikon. And here it is, many years later, and I'm having to sell off A-1s because I've acquired too many. I'm keeping two -- one with the Motor Drive MA (of course) and the other without it. Which has left me with another three to get rid of. Why so many? *shrug* Not sure. Often they were part of an outfit and there was something in the outfit I wanted, so the A-1 came along with.

And why am I keeping two, you might be wondering, since I had this love/hate relationship and all. I dunno. Part of it is nostalgia, I'll admit. Part of it is fascination over the durable nature and longevity of this camera. I sometimes wonder if a camera maker had any idea that its products would last as long as they have. Heck, I got almost 25 years of use out of a first generation EOS Rebel for petes sake, and ended up selling it on eBay for twenty bucks, and chances are that plastic wonder is still going strong somewhere. So, yeah, I'd have to say that part of it is fascination -- perhaps even a bit of amazement -- that a camera like the A-1 has done so well over the years. That sort of track record speaks to volumes that few others can manage, or imagine.

And in closing regarding the disagreements here that appear to have become a bit too heated, I'm reminded of the old Fidonet -- a bulletin board network that existed in the dark ages before the WWW -- which had a rather famous slogan:

Be ye not overly annoying . . . nor too easily annoyed

I think folks here at apug comport themselves quite well by this sort of philosophy, whether they're aware of it or not.

cooltouch said:

and also at the same time a very nice FL 35mm f/2.5 (still one of my favorite 35mm lenses of all time)

Click to expand...

Hi cooltouch; why is it your favorite? I also own one in pretty good shape, and it does have nice out of focus effects but I have the impression the corner performance is not so good (I mostly use it wide open). Which 35mm lenses have you compared it against? I have the contemporary PC-Nikkor 35/3.5, which is good once stopped down to f8 (but so are all 35mm prime lenses), and the 80s PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 which is absolutely sharp at all settings.

Hi Flavio, to be honest, I've never compared the FL 35/2.5 to any other 35mm. Just never really felt the need. As for corner or edge sharpness, you be the judge. This photo was taken back in about 1984 with that same Canon FTb. Kodachrome 64. It was a hazy winter day, but there was enough light for me to get sufficient depth of field -- I'm figuring probably no more than f/8 that day. Yes, there's some slight sharpness fall-off in the corners, but I've always considered it to be a negligible amount.



Here's another with the same camera and lens and Kodachrome 64, showing edge sharpness:

Cooltouch,

Thanks for providing images but IMO i can't judge resolution or sharpness by looking at 600x900 pixel images; i'd need at very least a 12MP scan to judge it.

I'll have to test my FL 35/2.5 !!

The A-1 is one of my least used cameras. It came as a body accompanying some lenses I wanted, and after an initial splurge and a CLA it lies in a drawer. It's not a bad camera and it's historically important, mainly for placing large, easily accessible aperture and shutter speed dials into small fiddly places. It also introduced the ubiquitous program mode to SLRs. I didn't like it when it was introduced and it hasn't grown on me, unlike the T90, another camera I thought was taking photography in the wrong direction and became the template for pretty much every subsequent SLR and DSLR.

Some cameras you bond with (even bad ones), and some you don't and me and the A-1 never clicked. I prefer the AV-1 for its point and shoot qualities to the all things to all people A-1.

blockend said:

The A-1 is one of my least used cameras. It came as a body accompanying some lenses I wanted, and after an initial splurge and a CLA it lies in a drawer. It's not a bad camera and it's historically important, mainly for placing large, easily accessible aperture and shutter speed dials into small fiddly places. It also introduced the ubiquitous program mode to SLRs. I didn't like it when it was introduced and it hasn't grown on me, unlike the T90, another camera I thought was taking photography in the wrong direction and became the template for pretty much every subsequent SLR and DSLR.

Some cameras you bond with (even bad ones), and some you don't and me and the A-1 never clicked. I prefer the AV-1 for its point and shoot qualities to the all things to all people A-1.

Click to expand...

I used the A-1 for many years as main camera, here's what i liked from it:

- pleasing LED display
- good viewfinder
- you can turn down the LED display and then you concentrate only in the image, with no distraction
- low vibrations
- smooth shutter release
- very reliable meter
- and very sensitive too
- the main dial has a lock - excellent idea!
- you can switch between P/Tv/Av/M modes very quickly and intuitively
- small and light
- really beautiful, far better looker than the AE-1P or the AV-1.

what i didn't like:

- having to perform the special procedure after stopping down the lens
- battery consumption very high if you keep the shutter-button half-pressed for long times (which my kind of photography requires)
- manual mode not so easy to work with

flavio81 said:

Cooltouch,

Thanks for providing images but IMO i can't judge resolution or sharpness by looking at 600x900 pixel images; i'd need at very least a 12MP scan to judge it.

I'll have to test my FL 35/2.5 !!

Click to expand...

I think you may be pleasantly surprised. And yes, I agree, it's always hard to evaluate image resolution at web resolutions. Unfortunately, however, these are the largest copies of those two images I have at present.