So who were these for?

BradS · Nov 12, 2020

Here’s Larry Burrows in Vietnam in 1971 with two Leica M3 and a Nikon F...all chrome. Burrows was virtually idolized by other war correspondents for his relative longevity.

once the friendly small arms fire starts, your position is well know by the enemy - any reflection from cameras or glass is completely inconsequential. I think they used whatever they could, whatever was available that they had some confidence would survive the day or week. Most pjs talk about being there, getting the moment right and seeing and telling a story.

reddesert · Nov 12, 2020

Black for high-level cameras, like say Canon RFs or the Nikon F, started off as a less common finish or rare option. For scarcity reasons the black bodies became collectible more quickly. OTOH, I don't think black Nikon F2 bodies are particularly rare, so they don't have the same premium.

By the time we are talking about, say late 1970s, you could often get SLR cameras in either black or chrome but black cost a little more (like US$10-20 or so). But some cameras already came only in black. I have no idea if it signified "pro" and suggest that reading old issues of Popular Photography might give a clue as what people thought at the time.

I bought a Nikon F w/meter used in 1985 because I wanted a durable camera. It was "old" then (affordable, though not super cheap, since it was a former high-end model). By then, I think it was already understood that the meters might stop working and the unmetered prism had started to have a collectible premium. Both the unmetered prisms and the black bodies are "collectible" by limited supply, since fewer people bought them new.

AgX · Nov 12, 2020

4season said:
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.

It was the first camera with internal digital control. If that mattered to people.

4season · Nov 12, 2020

Canon television commercials featuring tennis pro John Newcombe seemed to play constantly:

RLangham · Nov 12, 2020

4season said:
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.

My childhood in the early 00's wasn't much different except for having a VCR. Right down to the phone being rotary for most of the time, until that one stopped ringing when a call came in. We didn't even have television.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

RLangham said:
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...

RLangham said:
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.

RLangham said:
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.

RLangham said:
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)

AgX · Nov 12, 2020

4season said:
Canon television commercials featuring tennis pro John Newcombe seemed to play constantly:

I do not remember tv commercials for the AE-1 or the A-series in West-Germany, nor do I know of any hints at such.

Actually I do not remember any tv commercials for cameras at all from the 70's with the exception of Polaroid cameras.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

BrianShaw said:
Not intending to pick nits or start a fight... I was there too and don’t recall anything cheaper about aperture priority. That was more a Nikon v others diff. I chose Nikon aperture priority but worked simultaneously with cameras using shutter speed priority. Both get the same job done. So what was “cheaper”?

Cheaper in implementation as AgX said.

BrianShaw said:
That’s seems just too generic to be a credible statement. What was the cost difference between a Nikon FE and Canon AE-1, or a Nikon F3 and a Canon A1? I recall the prices to be similar and choice depending more on which side of the Nikon v Canon “battle” one was on. Perhaps my recollection is wrong but it’s a rather strong recollection... so feel free to correct with more detailed info.

F3 had similar prices to a Nikon FE or A1?

Now, to directly reply: To implement shutter-priority automation you need to control the diaphragm at stop down, which means being able to stop an arm that travels the whole range from, say, f22 to f1.4 in just a few milliseconds, with enough precision (1/3rd of a stop). To implement aperture-priority automation you just need to have electronic shutter timing, which is simpler to implement than the former. The AE-1 already has electronic shutter timing, so adding aperture-priority AE would have been MUCH simpler and cheaper than adding shutter-priority.

But the latter was used instead, since Canon thought it was easier to understand for novices.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

RLangham said:
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

You need to research camera history first before bringing out baseless claims as facts.

Canon aimed the F-1 camera at the professionals. The F-1 and then the New F-1 (1980). Clearly.

The F-1 is clearly a professional camera and don't take my word for it. Use google.

BrianShaw · Nov 12, 2020

flavio81 said:
F3 had similar prices to a Nikon FE or A1?

F3 and A1 were more similarly featured and priced.

Oddly, though, I’ve been using the same F3 since 1981 or 1982. About 4 years ago I was given a FE. The FE is just as good for my purposes as the F3. In harsh and heavy-use environments I’ll bet that wouldn’t be true but for casual photography it is.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

BrianShaw said:
F3 and A1 were more similarly featured and priced.

The Nikon F3 and A.-1 were similarly priced?!

BrianShaw · Nov 12, 2020

flavio81 said:
The Nikon F3 and A.-1 were similarly priced?!

That’s my recollection. It could be mistaken. I have no proof.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

RLangham said:
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?

Yo RLangham.

The A-1 is intended to be used in the auto mode (Program, Shutter priority or Aperture priority) and it works wonderfully well when used in that way. If you liked manual mode and were an amateur, Canon had the AT-1 for you.

By the way, just in case you thought this was "a plastic camera", the A-series cameras are very well constructed, with a metal body and internals (even more metal parts in the A-1), and have one of the most smooth shutter and mirror actions ever on a 35mm SLR camera. I should know, I have many many cameras and the A-series is one of the smoothest around. My Nikon FE, thought by some as a "superior" camera, has much more vibration than any A-series camera and an inferior viewing screen to an AE-1P or A-1 (later model with the laser matte screen).

The FE is also thought to be more reliable than the "frail" AE-1, yet i've found many, MANY Nikon FE cameras that don't work anymore -even cameras in great cosmetic shape-, while comparatively few A-series cameras that aren't working at all. Canon had experience in electronics since the early 60s, actually they got a lot of money selling innovative calculators in the 60s. So they knew how to make reliable electronics.

There was a reason those cameras sold like hotcakes: they were good, easy to operate, and priced competitively. They weren't cheaper than the competition, mind you.

NB23 · Nov 12, 2020

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

I was told the same for my 35$ Minolta kit, in Rio de Janeiro in 2016

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

BrianShaw said:
That’s my recollection. It could be mistaken. I have no proof.

The F3 is a pro camera and was significantly higher priced than the A-1. The Canon New F-1 was priced more similarly to the F3.

You can always use google books to read Popular Photography magazines from the 80s, the price lists are there on the ads.

BrianShaw · Nov 12, 2020

flavio81 said:
The F3 is a pro camera and was significantly higher priced than the A-1. The Canon New F-1 was priced more similarly to the F3.

You can always use google books to read Popular Photography magazines from the 80s, the price lists are there on the ads.

Y’know... that’s starting to ring a bell now that you mention it. I might have my letters and cameras confused. I went the Nikon route a long time ago and never looked back. My memory may have faded to the point I should apologize for any confusion ive added to this interesting discussion.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

RLangham said:
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.

You have a point here: Not all Canon lenses have wonderful rendering. But some of them do, like the FDn 35/2, FD 55/1,2, 85/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/2.5, and all 200 lenses and up. Some FD zooms also have pretty good rendering. And most L lenses do. You do have a point than some lenses have a "vanilla" rendering, very neutral with not so much of "character". Agree, this is the Canon FD look for many lenses. However they also have consistently high contrast, neutral color balance and uniform resolution. Again, "vanilla" versus "chocolate".

As for computer design, lenses were designed using computers since the late 50s.

RLangham · Nov 12, 2020

flavio81 said:
You have a point here: Not all Canon lenses have wonderful rendering. But some of them do, like the FD 55/1,2, 85/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/2.5, and all 200 lenses and up. You do have a point than some lenses have a "vanilla" rendering, very neutral with not so much of "character". Agree, this is the Canon FD look for many lenses. However they also have consistently high contrast, neutral color balance and uniform resolution. Again, "vanilla" versus "chocolate".

As for computer design, lenses were designed using computers since the late 50s.

I agree and if that's what you're looking for then in some ways they may be better than Nikkors of the same era.

I wonder how many lenses in the 50's were computer designed though. Probably only the most expensive ones, right? I've seen computers from that era... mostly good for doing a lot of repetitive math without human error. Not very fast and much less powerful than the typical graphing calculator of the 80's...

BradS · Nov 12, 2020

In the 1950’s a computer was a room full of women working adding machines.

RLangham · Nov 12, 2020

BradS said:
In the 1950’s a computer was a room full of women working adding machines.

Well, if I remember right "computer" was originally the name for that profession.

But the IBM 650, for instance, was around and then its successors were decently common in industrial settings from the mid-50's on.

miha · Nov 12, 2020

A-1 allows the viewfinder lights to be totally swithed off, a unique feature perhaps among cameras. My old Saab 900 NG had the same feature - Black Panel. This function blacks out the instrument panel apart from the speedometer.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

RLangham said:
I wonder how many lenses in the 50's were computer designed though.

Voigtlander had its first computer on the mid 50s and i read it rented it to other companies. Fuji (Fujica) had the first japanese-built computer of all times, and it was used for lens calculation. Nikon had a Zuse computer in the late 50s or early 60s. You can bet Pentax (Asahi Optical) had one at the same time, after all it was a far bigger company than Nikon.

I don't know when Canon started using computers but in the mid 60s it was had everything to build their own from the ground up (if necessary) and on the 80s they did build computers as well.

RLangham said:
mostly good for doing a lot of repetitive math without human error. Not very fast and much less powerful than the typical graphing calculator of the 80's...

That's exactly what's required for optical ray tracing. And in the 50s already faster than using squads of people with logarithm tables and manual calculators.

flavio81 · Nov 12, 2020

miha said:
A-1 allows the viewfinder lights to be totally swithed off, a unique feature perhaps among cameras. My old Saab 900 NG had the same feature - Black Panel. This function blacks out the instrument panel apart from the speedometer.

It's a great feature, really, one of the best features of the A-1. Put it on program, turn off the display, and focus on the image without distractions.

miha · Nov 12, 2020

flavio81 said:
It's a great feature, really, one of the best features of the A-1. Put it on program, turn off the display, and focus on the image without distractions.

Exactly.

jimjm · Nov 12, 2020

flavio81 said:
The F3 is a pro camera and was significantly higher priced than the A-1. The Canon New F-1 was priced more similarly to the F3.

You can always use google books to read Popular Photography magazines from the 80s, the price lists are there on the ads.

In the early 80's, a new F3 would set you back over $800 with a 1.8 lens. The A-1 was considerably less at under $450, also with a 1.8 lens.
Lots of new cameras being introduced around this time, with the top-tier competitors to the F3 being the Canon New F-1, Pentax LX, Minolta XK and Olympus OM-2n.

So who were these for?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency