In conditions where you're sure it won't dip below the lowest speed you can shoot by hand at, I guess, but I have trouble surrendering that much control to the camera, especially with an unweighted averaging meter
In conditions where you're sure it won't dip below the lowest speed you can shoot by hand at, I guess, but I have trouble surrendering that much control to the camera, especially with an unweighted averaging meterIt'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.
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.
One can be sure that within one country the final sale prices, taking into account discounts and varying overhead, were not always the same from one high street retailer to another.But were the price relations amongst japanese cameras the same all over the world? One may think so, but I am not sure.
In the 1950’s a computer was a room full of women working adding machines.
One can be sure that within one country the final sale prices, taking into account discounts and varying overhead, were not always the same from one high street retailer to another.
In America the market on most goods is free to a fault. Even liquor!No, in great parts of Europe (East and West) retail prices either were prescribed by authorities or typically prescribed by manufacturers. (A major topic at west-european photo-retail.)
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.
By the mid-1950's, women running comptometers were almost consigned to obsolescence. IBM and Burroughs, among others, had introduced their accounting machines which largely replaced the comptometer. The comptometer users gradually became keypunch operators, since the input to accounting machines, especially those made by IBM, was pretty much numeric in nature. When I first went to business college (1966), we had to learn how to program accounting machines, creating custom reports for the accountants, before we "graduated" to COBOL. The IBM's were very flexible, and allowed us to create reports in which data could be generated through a wired panel as well as cards. And we could even generate output cards (document originating) for input to the next cycle (balances forward, etc.) However, most of the keypunch input by then was strictly computer oriented, and the old IBM accounting machines mostly bit the dust by the mid-1960's. Card input, however, remained well into the 1980's. When newer input was needed, we had purchased terminals for input to the mainframe. The computer room bosses could then monitor "keystrokes/hour" as a method of judging work flow.In the 1950’s a computer was a room full of women working adding machines.
I got to meet a real PDP-11 once... they let me bootstrap it with some help from the museum tour guide.By the mid-1950's, women running comptometers were almost consigned to obsolescence. IBM and Burroughs, among others, had introduced their accounting machines which largely replaced the comptometer. The comptometer users gradually became keypunch operators, since the input to accounting machines, especially those made by IBM, was pretty much numeric in nature. When I first went to business college (1966), we had to learn how to program accounting machines, creating custom reports for the accountants, before we "graduated" to COBOL. The IBM's were very flexible, and allowed us to create reports in which data could be generated through a wired panel as well as cards. And we could even generate output cards (document originating) for input to the next cycle (balances forward, etc.) However, most of the keypunch input by then was strictly computer oriented, and the old IBM accounting machines mostly bit the dust by the mid-1960's. Card input, however, remained well into the 1980's. When newer input was needed, we had purchased terminals for input to the mainframe. The computer room bosses could then monitor "keystrokes/hour" as a method of judging work flow.
The original comptometer operators not only became the keypunch operators, but they also wound up as accounting clerks in later years as card input went obsolete.
I got to meet a real PDP-11 once... they let me bootstrap it with some help from the museum tour guide.
One of the later, more miniaturized submodels? Either way that's cool. Did it run Unix?I had one in my apartment when I was in college.
We had a PDP-11 and a fleet of PDP-8’s when I started my career. Mine was high-end and had four 8-inch floppy drives! I think a modern hearing aid has as much, or more, computing power. LOL I used a 390 baud modem to communicate with the IBM 360 mainframe. I think my boss had a faster modem... 1250 baud maybe.I got to meet a real PDP-11 once... they let me bootstrap it with some help from the museum tour guide.
One of the later, more miniaturized submodels? Either way that's cool. Did it run Unix?
I only payed 5 plus shipping for my Zorki S and it's my favorite non-SLR camera.Maybe your opinion of the camera comes from paying only $5 for it. ("a $5 camera CAN'T be any good!)
Right now KEH is selling a DE1 in excellent condition (not mint) for $360!!!
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-manual-focus-de1-p-f2-666277.html
But back in 1981 B&H was selling the A-1 for $306.95 and the F1-N for $380.95 a minor difference in price. But today the values of the 2 cameras are significantly more.My first decent SLR was an A-1 that I got as a teenager. I’ve always been a manual exposure kind of guy, but it was convenient to be able to turn it to “A” to let someone else take a photo with me in it, so they would just have to focus. It was stolen when our house was burglarized, and I used the insurance money toward a New F-1 that I still have almost 40 years later. When FD lenses were super cheap, I had a lot of nice L-glass. I sold most of it off for other things, mostly medium or large format, but kept a couple of teles (400/4.5 and 600/4.5) that I still use either on the New F-1 or with an original Canon FD-EOS converter either on the 1N-RS or the 5DII.
But to answer the original question, the A-series cameras were popular for people who were serious amateurs and didn’t need the ruggedness and flexibility of an F-1 and didn’t want the expense. They wanted to be able to control exposure and change lenses, so a point-and-shoot or fixed lens camera wouldn’t do. There were no smartphones, and photography was a popular pastime.
I'm looking at a B&H ad from Aug. 1982 and they list the A-1(body only) for $249.90, while the New F-1 (body only) is $469.90. Your quoted prices seem a bit off, as I doubt B&H would heavily discount a <1 year-old professional body.But back in 1981 B&H was selling the A-1 for $306.95 and the F1-N for $380.95 a minor difference in price.
They are subject to this. Amongst my A-series samples one has got this fault.If no one has mentioned it, A-series Canons were subject to endemic mirror bearing failure, aka "Canon Cough". This began as a high pitched squeak and if left unattended, developed into throaty bark and the mirror operating slowly enough to be in shot. Nor was this a rarity, pretty much all Canon A cameras developed the cough eventually. I'm not aware of it troubling the F-1 derivatives, so it's probably a production corner cut too far in reaching the price point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?