In the 70s, 80s, in analog Mf cameras, which one was better Nikon, Canon or Minolta?

[Vsanzbajo]

Nikon, Canon and Minolta, which one to get from 70s and 80s manual focus?
Thanks in advance

 

[tomalophicon]

Olympus

 

[polyglot]

Are you trying to test out your flameproof underpants?

Buy whichever one you like using and suits your purposes. There is no "best".

 

[johnielvis]

HA...trick question....HASSELBLAD!!!!!!

or bronica???? had nikon lenses, right?

 

[wiltw]

Nikon dominated the professional market back then. Canon was a 'we try harder' brand, and it was not until the EOS line that they made significant market share advances. Canon did reach the mass market with the AE-1, which was a budget camera response to the Olympus OM-n professional line of bodies and the amateur market OM-10/OM-PC.

 

[Vsanzbajo]

By best I meant, most popular, used by professionals. I am partial to Minolta, but I wanted to see if I was missing something with Nikon or Canon.
Any more opinions?

 

[2F/2F]

Nikon, Canon and Minolta, which one to get from 70s and 80s manual focus?
Thanks in advance

They were all the same.

But I would get Nikon, so you can use the same lenses on newer cameras, including digital cameras, with minimum hassle.

Don't bother concerning yourself with what was "best" or what " professionals" used. It is irrelevant. Think about what is best for you.

 

[flatulent1]

By best I meant, most popular,

Canon AE-1P.

used by professionals.

Nikon.

I am partial to Minolta, but I wanted to see if I was missing something with Nikon or Canon.

Yes, Contax. And Olympus, Pentax, Mamiya, Bronica, Leica, and many others.

 

[hoffy]

MF? Don't you mean 35mm?

Reading through old magazines and the like, I am constantly surprised how many pro's and the like used Olympus during the late 70's early 80's.

For me, though, Nikon always appeared to be built and aimed more at the higher end of town. They offered camera's that were more configurable, with Changeable prism's, motor drives etc. Sure, Minolta and Canon did on occasions as well, but not to the same level as Nikon

In the end, though, a camera was more of a bare bones tool back then. Each were really as good as each other and it came down to personal preference

 

[lxdude]

Regarding 35mm SLR's:

The Nikon F and F2 became the most popular with professionals in the 60's, and Nikon enjoyed a reputation as "the best". That carried over to their F2 in the early 70's. They had the most complete "system", a comprehensive lens line, and most others did not make an interchangeable viewfinder type camera at all. Nikon traded on that reputation by pricing their cameras, and especially lenses, significantly higher than the others for many years.
The fact is that any of the top brands were very good, and many professionals did use Topcon, Pentax, Minolta and Canon cameras in the 60's and 70's, and the Olympus became popular as well in the 70's. The Canon F-1 was an excellent effort by Canon to break Nikon's dominance, but fell short of doing so. That goes for the Minolta XK, too.
Charles Moore, who took many of the most famous pictures of the civil rights movement in the 60's, used a Pentax. W. Eugene Smith used Minolta SR-T's for his Minamata pictures.

 

[tomalophicon]

MF? Don't you mean 35mm?

Reading through old magazines and the like, I am constantly surprised how many pro's and the like used Olympus during the late 70's early 80's.

For me, though, Nikon always appeared to be built and aimed more at the higher end of town. They offered camera's that were more configurable, with Changeable prism's, motor drives etc. Sure, Minolta and Canon did on occasions as well, but not to the same level as Nikon

In the end, though, a camera was more of a bare bones tool back then. Each were really as good as each other and it came down to personal preference

I reckon he means manual focus (MF).

 

[hoffy]

OK!

 

[maderik]

but I wanted to see if I was missing something with Nikon or Canon.

You are missing high-speed motor drives, high-end all mechanical cameras, cameras with a good selection of interchangeable prisms, and perhaps a few specialized lenses.

 

[fstop]

If you like Minolta stick with it. The optics don't need to make any excuses.

 

[Trask]

I've got Nikons, Contaxs, Minoltas, Pentax SMs, and Canons. While I really like my Nikon F and Contaxes, I also really appreciate all that the Canon T-90 can do. The metering options are outstanding, as is the build quality, motor drive, ergonomics, etc. Plus its short flange-to-film plane distance means you can throw other-make lenses on it. It's a highly capable nearly unbustable machine. What other camera do you that, when the magnets on the shutter stick from lack of use, the standard fix is to smack it on the ground??!!

 

[MattKing]

If you wanted to work with microscopes, and other high magnification macro work, you would have looked very seriously at Olympus.

Each of the brands had particular strengths. Some of those strengths were closely linked to how the cameras were marketed - Nikons for example were very well supported in the early 1970s if you used them in a newspaper environment.

 

[fstop]

None of them are worth a hill of beans without what my photography class instructor drummed into our heads over 3 decades ago.

Composition,composition,composition...

 

[Les Sarile]

As far as interchangeable finder variety, after I get the Canon Flex and F-1 as well as a Topcon Super DM, I may have a better idea . . . or not . . . ;-)

 

[maderik]

Canon did reach the mass market with the AE-1, which was a budget camera response to the Olympus OM-n professional line of bodies and the amateur market OM-10/OM-PC.

The AE-1 in 1976 was a response to the OM-10 of 1979? The AE-1 was the first SLR to be controlled by a microprocessor. This lowered the parts count making it one of the first of the inexpensive auto-exposure SLRs that helped create the SLR boom of the late 70's - early 80's. By 1979, pretty much every camera maker had an auto-exposure, battery-dependent, plastic top-plate SLR at an entry-level price point.

 

[lxdude]

Hey Les, you also need the original Canon F-1. And to be really thorough, you should get both versions!

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
The Minolta XK-Motor !

Ron
.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

All of them are great cameras, it is the person behind the camera that made the difference!

Jeff

 

[blockend]

The criteria for choosing a particular camera in the 70s and selecting one now have changed. All the top brands made very good cameras. Nikon cornered the professional market by dominating the hire market, a pro could borrow a specialist lens for a particular assignment knowing it would work on his bodies. Canon were forced to innovate electronically to compete and by the time of the A-series, FD lens cameras of the late 70s, had cornered the mass market. Pentax were loved for their mechanical Spotmatics but lost their way somewhat. The tiny MX/ME were innovative but didn't enjoy the best reputation for reliability.

Minolta were never the force in Europe they were in the US, Olympus made great cameras with the OM series but never threatened the Nikon-Canon cartel and the rest weren't marketed with the same financial clout, leaving some good cameras out in the cold.
Depending on your motivation (using, collecting) Nikon are still a serious player in the used market. However their classic lenses are moving towards Leica prices in the rangefinder market, with 'desirable' but beaten up early lenses selling for a lot of money and pristine examples disappearing into collections for very large sums.

My choice would be any brand for which a full mechanical and an auto exposure body was available, to fulfil different requirements.
Canon orphaned their FD mount bodies when the EF 'Eos' mount appeared, leaving pro and amateur bodies as history, including some excellent cameras like the F-1 and T90. As FD bodies cannot fit the latest DSLRs without a special, lens inclusive adaptor, they haven't hit the prices of Nikon F mounts, although values are steadily rising. Other manufacturer's 60s and 70s lenses follow a similar pattern depending on how easily adaptable they are to DSLR and movie requirements.
In short, if you are buying to collect and looking for long term investment, classic Nikon Fs are probably the marque to aim for. If you're looking to take photographs the choice is more open and the condition of individual bodies and lenses more important than brand. As ever, budget will decide your eventual choices. From the mid-70s the 35mm SLR market was split between expensive, mechanically solid professional bodies from most manufacturers and consumer level cameras with increasing use of plastics and electronics leap-frogging each other with new fads for the photographer's cash.

 

[Vsanzbajo]

Thank so much for your opinion.
I have been looking at Minolta SRTs and XD 11s. I think that Minolta is on par with Nikon and Canon in quality and now they seem easier and cheaper to find. Any opinions on this?
Thanks

The criteria for choosing a particular camera in the 70s and selecting one now have changed. All the top brands made very good cameras. Nikon cornered the professional market by dominating the hire market, a pro could borrow a specialist lens for a particular assignment knowing it would work on his bodies. Canon were forced to innovate electronically to compete and by the time of the A-series, FD lens cameras of the late 70s, had cornered the mass market. Pentax were loved for their mechanical Spotmatics but lost their way somewhat. The tiny MX/ME were innovative but didn't enjoy the best reputation for reliability.

Minolta were never the force in Europe they were in the US, Olympus made great cameras with the OM series but never threatened the Nikon-Canon cartel and the rest weren't marketed with the same financial clout, leaving some good cameras out in the cold.
Depending on your motivation (using, collecting) Nikon are still a serious player in the used market. However their classic lenses are moving towards Leica prices in the rangefinder market, with 'desirable' but beaten up early lenses selling for a lot of money and pristine examples disappearing into collections for very large sums.

My choice would be any brand for which a full mechanical and an auto exposure body was available, to fulfil different requirements.
Canon orphaned their FD mount bodies when the EF 'Eos' mount appeared, leaving pro and amateur bodies as history, including some excellent cameras like the F-1 and T90. As FD bodies cannot fit the latest DSLRs without a special, lens inclusive adaptor, they haven't hit the prices of Nikon F mounts, although values are steadily rising. Other manufacturer's 60s and 70s lenses follow a similar pattern depending on how easily adaptable they are to DSLR and movie requirements.
In short, if you are buying to collect and looking for long term investment, classic Nikon Fs are probably the marque to aim for. If you're looking to take photographs the choice is more open and the condition of individual bodies and lenses more important than brand. As ever, budget will decide your eventual choices. From the mid-70s the 35mm SLR market was split between expensive, mechanically solid professional bodies from most manufacturers and consumer level cameras with increasing use of plastics and electronics leap-frogging each other with new fads for the photographer's cash.

 

[Klainmeister]

I have a buddy with two SRT bodies and many lenses. The things are bulletproof, surprisingly light and compact, and as far as I can tell, his images are great. Go for it I guess. If you don't like em after a while, sell em back to someone who will want it and find what suits you best. At the current prices of 35mm stuff, what do you have to lose?