So who were these for?

[RLangham]

Where did you get these ideas? The OMs were backed by an extensive sysetm. The F2 was an improved F, the F was and is quite a rugged camera. In the US the Spottie may have been seen as an amateur camera, elsewhere working pros used them.

Point by point:

I have never seen something called a system camera unless it had fully interchangeable viewfinders and actually had a system of multiple different viewfinder attachments.

You misunderstand me about the F2. I mean pros upgraded from less rugged cameras to the extremely ruggedized F2. The F2 is about as rugged as it gets in a system camera, right? They certainly outsurvive a lot of the contemporaries.

I still can't get my head wrapped around a pro using a stop-down metering camera with regards to the Spotmatic and other high-performance M42 cameras like the 1000 and 2000 DTL. I was always under the impression that with the exception of Nikon F and Beseler Topcon early adopters, most photojournalists at least kept using rangefinders until wide-open metering became ubiquitous in the late 60's. Is that not how it went?

 

[RLangham]

I was working part time in a cameras store when the AE-1 first came out. We couldn't keep them in stock they were so popular! Mostly dads wanting a camera for kids pics and vacations photos. It was reasonably priced and easy to use. The shutter priority turned off some serious photographers but for the masses any kind of automation with an SLR was a huge bonus. Less to think about. They were great cameras in the day. I still have one, or at least I should say my wife still has one. She was a Canon shooter with F1's etc in the day, moved to the 5D system when it came out and eventually migrated over to Panasonic mirrorless a few years ago.

Me, I have alway been a Nikon shooter after a quick affair with Minolta. Now also Panasonic mirrorless.

I have used the FD lenses on my Panasonic and they are pretty good. More color fringing than I would have expected however. My wife's newer L series glass however is rock solid in every respect.

That seems to make sense.

Yes, L series is a far cry from Canon consumer optics. I've never noticed anything noteworthy about basic Canon normals and wides, whereas you can use a Minolta or a basic pre-AI Nikon lens for a day and see that it has individual character and strengths and weaknesses. Canon lenses just feel flat to me, and I've had almost exclusively ones in near perfect shape. I think they were the first lenses to be computer designed to be mathematically ideal, but that doesn't translate to great artistic renderings.

 

[AgX]

I have never seen something called a system camera unless it had fully interchangeable viewfinders and actually had a system of multiple different viewfinder attachments.

The OM-2 qualifies for that, see the broshure page I posted, except for not having an interchangable finder.

Furthermore I have not come across a photojournalist who needed exchangable finders, if the one he got was sufficient to him. To me the finder issue is more appropriate on technical photograohy or very specialized photojournalists.
And I never came across a photojournalist who used an OM.

 

[BradS]

I guess I understand the AE-1 and the AE-1 Program being new and hot autoexposure cameras for amateurs, but like... the A-1 still bothers me in that regard. They made some attempt to get professionals on board with all three of them (and doubtless failed since they're just not pro cameras), but they seemed to push the A-1 HARD as an entry-level pro camera, right? That's why it's black, has viewfinder shutter and... it was the first A-series with a focusing screen that the user could swap, right? They wanted low-level, beginning photojournalist or other incoming young professionals, right? That's what that feature set seems to cater to, but then you have so many things about that camera that as you all say, no professional would stand for. The fact that you literally have to do a reset on the camera body any time you preview the depth of field really gets me. You know, when it flashes "EEE E EE" or whatever? And you have to hit the double exposure switch and cycle the advance lever again?

Like I guess that's what they were going for? And it was a miscalculation in that case. But the camera saw success anyways. Who bought that one specifically.

Like I guess I would have been the target audience for the AE-1 when I was actually using it. I can see amateurs with a bit of spending money thinking both the AE-1's were the hottest thing ever at the time (even though Mamiya had done more technically interesting stuff at similar price point already, hadn't they?) The A-1 still seems weird in the ways I mention, though.

No. Equating Black SLR with professional SLR is fraught with error.

We may be overthinking this a bit. it could simply be that canon produced the A1 to have direct competitor for some model with similar feature content from one of the other major players.

 

[RLangham]

The OM-2 qualifies for that, see the broshure page I posted, except for not having an interchangable finder.

I think up to a certain point it also meant having different control modules (i.e. either different meter attachments or different autoexposure attachments) like you would see in different ways on the Nikon F and F2, the Canon F-1 and NF-1, and whatever that Minolta was called. The idea I've always heard associated with that term is that the camera body is just a hub with wildly different attachments.

 

[RLangham]

No. Equating Black SLR with professional SLR is fraught with error.

We may be overthinking this a bit. it could simply be that canon produced the A1 to have direct competitor for some model with similar feature content from one of the other major players.

Well, no, you're right in that it's unbelievably far from pro grade. But black enamel finish is one thing that camera makers have used to signal, rightly or wrongly, that something is for professional consumption.

 

[AgX]

I think up to a certain point it also meant having different control modules (i.e. either different meter attachments or different autoexposure attachments) like you would see in different ways on the Nikon F and F2, the Canon F-1 and NF-1, and whatever that Minolta was called. The idea I've always heard associated with that term is that the camera body is just a hub with wildly different attachments.

Yes, but the issue is to what extent which group of possible (professional) users will use those features, or actually needs all of them.

Or, seen from a different perspective: the KW Praktina was the first system camera, but likely it rather failed as there still was not the market yet for those features in the early 50's.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Point by point:

I have never seen something called a system camera unless it had fully interchangeable viewfinders and actually had a system of multiple different viewfinder attachments.

You misunderstand me about the F2. I mean pros upgraded from less rugged cameras to the extremely ruggedized F2. The F2 is about as rugged as it gets in a system camera, right? They certainly outsurvive a lot of the contemporaries.

I still can't get my head wrapped around a pro using a stop-down metering camera with regards to the Spotmatic and other high-performance M42 cameras like the 1000 and 2000 DTL. I was always under the impression that with the exception of Nikon F and Beseler Topcon early adopters, most photojournalists at least kept using rangefinders until wide-open metering became ubiquitous in the late 60's. Is that not how it went?

You might just as well have said that the Nikon F was made for US doctors and dentists who bought the cameras with the 50/1.4 to be used along with spiffy new wives after picking up a 450SL at the factory. I've seen these characters using their expensive cameraw to take snapshots that could have been done as well with a good grade of Instamatic.

As for the Spotmatic, your view is too US-centric for words. In the UK professional motor racing photographers used them.

Your concept of system camera is too narrow.

In short, the cameras you named were made for whoever would buy them.

 

[reddesert]

When the AE-1 and similar cameras were introduced (late 70s), the avid photographer in many families might have had a rangefinder with autoexposure (like a Canonet, Yashica Electro 35, etc). Which is a perfectly capable camera, but the AE-1 and similar were an easy step up to interchangeable lenses, so you could get a 28mm for scenic shots and a 135mm for taking pictures of your kid playing sports, etc - or even a zoom, which were still kind of out-there and expensive. I'm speaking in cliches, but that is what a lot of people did.

Back then, people and magazine reviews were interested in whether lenses were "sharp." By the 80s or so, nearly any generic prime lens (especially the 50mm) was sharp enough, and by the 90s people needed something else to argue about, so nascent internet forums, blogs, etc started to talk about bokeh and rendering. But when the AE-1 was new, and long after that, the only people who argued about ineffable rendering qualities of lenses were (IMO) devotees of certain expensive European systems.

The AE-1 hit its market niche very well and it sold by the zillions. Certain cameras become iconic of a particular niche even though there are others that do essentially the same thing (like the way that the Pentax K1000 was/is the all-manual entry level intro photography student camera, even though there are others that serve the same purpose). The AE-1 is iconic of the inroads of electronics into consumer SLRs and the A-1 was the step-up version (and the others in the family like the AV-1 were much less common). Looking at vintage magazine ads will give a lot of insight into how these were positioned.

 

[RLangham]

You might just as well have said that the Nikon F was made for US doctors and dentists who bought the cameras with the 50/1.4 to be used along with spiffy new wives after picking up a 450SL at the factory. I've seen these characters using their expensive cameraw to take snapshots that could have been done as well with a good grade of Instamatic.

As for the Spotmatic, your view is too US-centric for words. In the UK professional motor racing photographers used them.

Your concept of system camera is too narrow.

In short, the cameras you named were made for whoever would buy them.

You seem to ignore how extensively market research played a role in directing R&D, and how many camera manufacturers made a great camera and failed due to inadequately marketing it.

Nothing in multinational industry is "build it and they will come." The money involved is too much and the people in control have to answer to the stockholders. It is suicide in modern times to gamble blindly on the market without research.

 

[BradS]

....black enamel finish is one thing that camera makers have used to signal, rightly or wrongly, that something is for professional consumption.

That maybe the perception of some people but I really do not think that the statement is true in any broader sense.

Consider that professionals would not care and many didn’t get to choose. If you worked for a newspaper, you used what the company supplied, for example. Personally, I’ve always preferred chrome finish simply because it wears better and absorbs less heat. Undoubtedly, some consumers may have conflated black with professional but I really don’t buy that manufacturers thought their customers were that naive.

 

[RLangham]

When the AE-1 and similar cameras were introduced (late 70s), the avid photographer in many families might have had a rangefinder with autoexposure (like a Canonet, Yashica Electro 35, etc). Which is a perfectly capable camera, but the AE-1 and similar were an easy step up to interchangeable lenses, so you could get a 28mm for scenic shots and a 135mm for taking pictures of your kid playing sports, etc - or even a zoom, which were still kind of out-there and expensive. I'm speaking in cliches, but that is what a lot of people did.

Back then, people and magazine reviews were interested in whether lenses were "sharp." By the 80s or so, nearly any generic prime lens (especially the 50mm) was sharp enough, and by the 90s people needed something else to argue about, so nascent internet forums, blogs, etc started to talk about bokeh and rendering. But when the AE-1 was new, and long after that, the only people who argued about ineffable rendering qualities of lenses were (IMO) devotees of certain expensive European systems.

The AE-1 hit its market niche very well and it sold by the zillions. Certain cameras become iconic of a particular niche even though there are others that do essentially the same thing (like the way that the Pentax K1000 was/is the all-manual entry level intro photography student camera, even though there are others that serve the same purpose). The AE-1 is iconic of the inroads of electronics into consumer SLRs and the A-1 was the step-up version (and the others in the family like the AV-1 were much less common). Looking at vintage magazine ads will give a lot of insight into how these were positioned.

I think you're right about most of your points. I think you'd be right in implying that there were only three A-series cameras that matter in terms of sales and notability to the history of Canon.

 

[AgX]

When the AE-1 and similar cameras were introduced (late 70s), the avid photographer in many families might have had a rangefinder with autoexposure (like a Canonet, Yashica Electro 35, etc). Which is a perfectly capable camera, but the AE-1 and similar were an easy step up to interchangeable lenses, so you could get a 28mm for scenic shots and a 135mm for taking pictures of your kid playing sports, etc - or even a zoom, which were still kind of out-there and expensive. I'm speaking in cliches, but that is what a lot of people did.

At my family the AE-1 (with 50mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.5) replaced a Kodak Retina IB from 1958.


But only as the Retina had its transport/cocking blocked and the dealer called a repair uneconomic.

 

[blockend]

Amateurs wanted the most tricks at the cheapest price. Canon fulfilled this with plastic bodied, battery powered, auto SLRs. We've become used to cameras with PASM dials, but in the 1970s Program mode was a big deal. It enabled people to adopt the pro look of SLRs, without any skill except focusing.

 

[Huss]

The A1 was the coolest looking camera.

That's all I got to add to this squable.

 

[AgX]

The A-series was not plastic bodied.
But it got a plastic top* (later some models also a plastic bottom) and a plastic battery-chamber door.


*That idea was taken over from Pentacon and their Praktica L-series.

 

[RLangham]

That maybe the perception of some people but I really do not think that the statement is true in any broader sense.

Consider that professionals would not care and many didn’t get to choose. If you worked for a newspaper, you used what the company supplied, for example. Personally, I’ve always preferred chrome finish simply because it wears better and absorbs less heat. Undoubtedly, some consumers may have conflated black with professional but I really don’t buy that manufacturers thought their customers were that naive.

You're probably right but it does seem like there's an association between black cameras and PJ men. I think it may just be that newspapers used to order the black version of whatever they were issuing out because it looked less flashy and more formal and professional. Canon would certainly have been willy nilly in applying this principle, when you look at the models they only issued in black.

At any rate I know that black commands a premium today when selling antique cameras. A black Nikon F2 sells for higher than a chrome one, but obviously less than a titanium one. A black OM can be double a chrome one sometimes.

 

[AgX]

At any rate I know that black commands a premium today when selling antique cameras. A black Nikon F2 sells for higher than a chrome one, but obviously less than a titanium one. A black OM can be double a chrome one sometimes.

Today prices do not necessarilly (if at all) reflect the considerations of back then.

 

[RLangham]

At my family the AE-1 (with 50mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.5) replaced a Kodak Retina IIIc from 1958.


But only as the Retina had its transport/cocking blocked and the dealer called a repair uneconomic.

That is the Retina problem, isn't it?

 

[BrianShaw]

At my family the AE-1 (with 50mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.5) replaced a Kodak Retina IIIc from 1958.

At my family the AE-1 replaced an Argus C-3. My engineer father transitioned from frugally cheap to high-tech snapshooting.

 

[RLangham]

Today prices do not necessarilly (if at all) reflect the considerations of back then.

Nor was I arguing that they would.

 

[AgX]

That is the Retina problem, isn't it?

In hindsight I guess so. I would be more happy if the Retina would not have been delivered in as payment for the Canon by my father, and instead I today could repair it. It bears childhood memories of admiring its surcfaces, but also wondering about its design flaws, before I even was allowed to take a photo with it.

 

[AgX]

I am still a FD-guy. And in spite of its quirks I still advise the AE-1 even as a beginner camera.

And as hinted at already the AE-1 represents for many of us (by its sheer production number and big market share) the entrance to SLR photography.


The Zenits, the Prakticas and the AE-1 were the mass SLRs.
All built in millions.

 

[BradS]

You're probably right but it does seem like there's an association between black cameras and PJ men. I think it may just be that newspapers used to order the black version of whatever they were issuing out because it looked less flashy and more formal and professional. Canon would certainly have been willy nilly in applying this principle, when you look at the models they only issued in black.

At any rate I know that black commands a premium today when selling antique cameras. A black Nikon F2 sells for higher than a chrome one, but obviously less than a titanium one. A black OM can be double a chrome one sometimes.

I think this , the notion that black is less flashy, is all a fairly recent, almost romanticized, perception of the past that is not necessarily accurate/ true.

Certainly, the idea that black is less flashy is a very recent attitude....and even so, it is not universal. Many people, young and old, express the opposite sentiment. Furthermore, Photojournalists in the 1970s and early 1980s for example, would not have held that attitude nor would they even have cared. Whether the camera was flashy or not....it just wasn’t something that a working pj even thought about.

you are spot on w.r.t used black SLR of all types commanding significantly higher prices today. It baffles me but there’s no denying it. It’s actually really interesting to see how perceptions of somethings have changed over time.

 

[RLangham]

I am still a FD-guy. And in spite of its quirks I still advise the AE-1 even as a beginner camera.

And as shown already the AE-1 represents for many of us (by its sheer production number and big market share) the entrance to SLR photography.

I would recommend it too if only because it was my start. I do think that sometimes the timer will start to go off and be further and further order at slow speeds, and obviously it doesn't love it when you preview the depth of field, which I do before taking maybe 30 percent of my photographs. It doesn't make it as difficult for you as the A-1 does.

Honestly a lot of people now are recommending A-1 to beginners and I can't say as I love the idea but I can't say as I hate it either.

I would honestly start a beginner out with a Pentax K2, a Nikkormat FT2 or a Minolta srT 202 if they had the money. Those all give you a good intro to the three factors of exposure and can last you a lifetime. But AE-1 isn't a horrible idea either.