So who were these for?

[BradS]

.....The Zenits, the Prakticas and the AE-1 were the mass SLRs...

Zenit and Praktica were completely unheard of here in the US until decades after the wall fell. I would guess that those brands are still largely unknown here.

From the mid to late 1960s or so, Pentax, Minolta, Canon, Olympus and Nikon were mass market film SLR brands here.

 

[AgX]

I would recommend it too if only because it was my start.

But one still should try to keep an objective view, beyond nostalgia or not knowing better as one only used that one.

 

[AgX]

Zenit and Praktica were largely unheard of here in the US until decades after the wall fell. I would guess that those brands are still largely unknown here.

From the mid to late 1960s or so, Pentax, Minolta, Canon, Olympus and Nikon were mass market film SLR brands here.

The Zenits were build in larger numbers than any other camera series. (Of course one could start discussioms on models and series, but you get my point.)

This shows how limited often our views are concerning markets.

 

[RLangham]

But one still should try to keep an objective view, beyond nostalgia or not knowing better as one only used that one.

Well, you know, it is good to start with something that the learner can get good results with before moving to more difficult problems. Gives confidence.

 

[Huss]

..
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.

It's the same thing with Nikon F2s. The meterless prism was the cheapest version of the F2 at the time, with the magnificent DP12 head (F2AS) being the most expensive. Now an equal condition meterless head is worth more than the DP12.
I have both and for photography not posing the metered head is far superior. But the current market doesn't think so...

Right now KEH is selling a DE1 in excellent condition (not mint) for $360!!!
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-manual-focus-de1-prism-f2-666277.html

 

[MattKing]

And I never came across a photojournalist who used an OM.

I did.
Jane Bown did.
The association of black with professional quality probably arose because more of the pro oriented bodies came out in black. Many of the advanced amateur cameras did not, or were rarely seen in black.
The OM bodies were the heart of the most extensive photo-micrography system available. They also offered extensive capabilities to those who needed bulk backs, data backs, and a bunch of other niches.
"System" cameras were cameras that offered a lot of flexibility. Many of the systems had particular strengths. Photo-journalism was important, but only a tiny percentage of cameras were used by photo-journalists.
I sold a lot of cameras over a number of years. I never sold a special purpose interchangeable finder for a 35mm camera, never had one in stock (and we had lots of accessories in stock - at least one store catered to university purchases) and never had a customer enquire about one.
I did sell a few clip on angle finders - they served the purpose for just about everyone.
The 35mm cameras that offered interchangeable were often great cameras, but very, very, very few customers were interested in the finders themselves.
And as for the cost issue with shutter priority, the real cost was in having to change the lenses to work with it. The FD lenses were designed from the beginning to offer it, so Canon didn't have to incur that cost for the AE-1.
FWIW, even though I sold lots of A-1s, they never appealed to me.

 

[MattKing]

Zenit and Praktica were completely unheard of here in the US until decades after the wall fell. I would guess that those brands are still largely unknown here.

From the mid to late 1960s or so, Pentax, Minolta, Canon, Olympus and Nikon were mass market film SLR brands here.

I sold Prakticas in Canada before the wall fell.
But we had problems with them.

 

[RLangham]

It's the same thing with Nikon F2s. The meterless prism was the cheapest version of the F2 at the time, with the magnificent DP12 head (F2AS) being the most expensive. Now an equal condition meterless head is worth more than the DP12.
I have both and for photography not posing the metered head is far superior. But the current market doesn't think so...

Right now KEH is selling a DE1 in excellent condition (not mint) for $360!!!
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-manual-focus-de1-prism-f2-666277.html

And despite being the least popular at the time the DP-3 is now the most sought after of the metered finders. I got quite the deal on mine somehow.

 

[Huss]

I sold Prakticas in Canada before the wall fell.
But we had problems with them.

Did they defect?

 

[RLangham]

Did they defect?

Hehehe that's funny
(Sorry, my phone posted this from my pocket)

 

[blockend]

It's worth remembering 35mm film cameras had very special applications. In microscopy or medical applications, a camera might spend its entire working life without anyone looking through the viewfinder. Or a camera might be used for copy work, with a magnifying head. The same camera in a PJs hands or police work, would never have the head removed. People get the idea professional photographers endlessly changed camera parts. Many didn't even own a power winder, and flash was through the PC port, not a hot shoe.

 

[MattKing]

Did they defect?

Nope, but a few of them didn't stay together well.

 

[BradS]

It's the same thing with Nikon F2s. The meterless prism was the cheapest version of the F2 at the time, with the magnificent DP12 head (F2AS) being the most expensive. Now an equal condition meterless head is worth more than the DP12.
I have both and for photography not posing the metered head is far superior. But the current market doesn't think so...

Right now KEH is selling a DE1 in excellent condition (not mint) for $360!!!
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-manual-focus-de1-prism-f2-666277.html

yeah, it’s really interesting how sentiments have changed.

The DE-1 was the cheap version that nobody really wanted except those few pjs who, because of the extreme environments in which they worked, saw the camera as not long destined for this world anyway and they accepted the F2 with DE-1 because it was cheap, rugged and reliable. For them, it wasn’t a fashion statement. The metered head was just added cost and weight without commensurate value.

Same thing with black bodies...In the 1970’s amateurs didn’t want a black camera because everybody knew that it would look like shit after a year. A 35mm SLR was very expensive and you wanted it to last and not look beat to hell after a year of modest amateur use. Now, brassy black is somehow fetishized. Professionals mostly didn’t care. Again, it wasn’t a fashion statement and none that I knew even thought about chrome vs black, they just bought and used whatever would get the job done at an acceptable price.
I remember in 2003 or 2004 when I bought a brand new Nikon FM3A. The price difference between black and chrome was meaningless $20 ($569 vs $589) and the black one was not a big seller- again, most people just did not want a black one.

 

[AgX]

Interesting remarks on this black vs. silver camera issue. I am not sure whether it was the same over here. I am lacking serious sources to check. But in hindsight my impression is that black was associated with professionalism. And as far as I remember the press photographers all had black samples.

 

[Huss]

Press photogs/photo journos in war zones wanted black cameras as they drew less attention.

 

[BradS]

Press photogs/photo journos in war zones wanted black cameras as they drew less attention.

Black is less reflective in sunlight. Nothing like a flash of light to give away your position.

even so, if you look at photos of Vietnam era war correspondents in the field, many of them carried chrome Nikon F and Leica M2.

 

[RLangham]

Press photogs/photo journos in war zones wanted black cameras as they drew less attention.

I was told my AE-1 was too expensive-looking and would be stolen off my neck in Tegucigalpa, Honduras in *2018*!

 

[RLangham]

Black is less reflective in sunlight. Nothing like a flash of light to give away your position.

I wonder how that goes in actual combat, though. Lenses still glint and anyways, how many war correspondents were doing operations where concealment was even possible?

 

[BradS]

I was told my AE-1 was too expensive-looking and would be stolen off my neck in Tegucigalpa, Honduras in *2018*!

not because it is black though. In these poor countries any SLR looks expensive.

 

[BradS]

I wonder how that goes in actual combat, though. Lenses still glint and anyways, how many war correspondents were doing operations where concealment was even possible?

True. Of course they used lens hoods extensively but yeah, it was a death wish no matter what you were using.

I think I was adding to my post while you were replying. Refresh and see the bit I added

 

[RLangham]

not because it is black though. In these poor countries any SLR looks expensive.

It isn't, it was the common chrome. But that's true.

 

[AgX]

Press photogs/photo journos in war zones wanted black cameras as they drew less attention.

But how big was that market? Manufacturers could have custom made such samples.

To my understanding the idea was to stop specular reflections off the camera-body to a nearby subject. As before lenses typically already changed from silver to black and later did tripods and lamp stands too.

 

[BrianShaw]

In a past life we preferred black to chrome only for use with copy stands. For field work it didn’t matter.

 

[flavio81]

Still, even being intimately familiar with the three most popular cameras from the A series, I don't get any of these cameras on a conceptual level. They're bulky,

How can they be bulky if they are smaller than the average 70s camera, and smaller and lighter than a Spotmaitic, which is universally regarded as a very ergonomic camera?! They are also among the lightest 35mm SLR cameras around. An AE-1 weights almost the same (590g) than an OM-1 (510g) which is universally regarded as being very light...

hideously complicated to operate

Takte the A-1, set the shutter speed on the green P and the aperture ring on the green A. Now you're set to go, the machine will do everything.

This wasn't possible on an SLR before 1978 (the release date of the A-1).

Attach a winder and operation is fully automatic.

The A-1 and AE-1P were popular because they were SLR cameras that could be operated as a point-and-shoot camera.

seem to HATE being used in manual mode,

The AE-1, A-1 and AE-1P were intended for people that found operating a manual camera difficult or slow.

and the lenses are only alright

Are you sure? When the FD lenses were released in 1971, an independent Tokyo university did a test with lenses from all major camera manufacturers in 13 categories according to focal length. Over 300 lenses tested. The Canon FD lenses got the top marks in 8 of 13 categories. Even today, internet reviewers that use lenses on FF digital mirrorless cameras, often find out that some FD lenses are topping the comparison or are very near the top.

I have quite a few of Pentax M42, K, Nikon pre-AI, AI lenses, plus Canon FD lenses and most of my FD lenses are good (50/1,8) to fantastic (100/2.8 and others)

 

[4season]

In the USA, AE1 was the right product at the right time, and it was brilliantly promoted. Understand that when it arrived, it was perhaps the most advanced piece of technology in people's lives, and it's blinking LEDs and the sound of it's motor drive were very fashionable.

To put things into perspective, had you been around in the late 1970s, chances are your home would have had one shared wall phone provided by the phone company, no computers, no video games, no VCR, a single 15" - 24" TV set capable of receiving a half-dozen stations if you were lucky. Your personal entertainment might be an AM/FM/cassette portable. Which might seem like deprivation, but when everyone you knew had about the same, it just seemed normal.