David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
I think the EF could use the distance measurement system with the ring that attached to the lens as well. I had an EF for a while, but not the flash system.
That was possible because the OM-2 metered light as it reflected off the film plane when in auto-exposure mode. The AE-1 et al didn't.The Olympus OM-2 of 1975 had TTL flash. Not sure if this was its first implementation.
I think the EF could use the distance measurement system with the ring that attached to the lens as well. I had an EF for a while, but not the flash system.
You choose your aperture on the flash and it tells the camera which aperture to set for. It doesn't have a rangefinder but it does have a sensor to sense the scene brightness and automatically cut off the flash (many other flashes of the time worked like that). The unique of the A seires is that the flash can set the aperture on the camera. I found after so many years this feature no longer work well any more.THAT'S what the stud was for? I've had two of the second version "long nose" lens (not "chrome nose") with the stud. I assumed it was to indicate the position to the photographer's hand. That's very interesting.
So are the extra contacts on the A-series flash shoes to communicate the flash ready signal only?
The EL isn't a pro model and yet the pro model the F3's FRE is also subject to cracking too.
That was possible because the OM-2 metered light as it reflected off the film plane when in auto-exposure mode. The AE-1 et al didn't.
The camera could measure the light prior to exposure (through the silvered mirror) but also after the shutter button had been released, as the exposure was being made by reading off the film, what we would call today as exposure in real time.
All other cameras took the exposure prior to shutter release.
You said weighted you meant center weighted? Most cameras of the time including the A series had center weighted metering system. As for spot metering only the Olympus OM 3 and 4 had it but it was later than the A series. Spot metering didn't become the norm until much later.Okay, youse guys have shown me the light. I think I just didn't understand how early in the autoexposure game the A series was. I still wouldn't rely on an A series camera for more than casual shooting--gotta have some weighted or spot metering for that, for one thing, cause I like to have specific control over what part of the scene I'm metering, and I do prefer mechanical shutters. Still, the A-1 appeals to me in a way that the AE-1 models no longer do. I like that it shows full info in the viewfinder in all automatic modes, and that it has aperture control on an ergonomic dial on the body. Those are good features and while we take them for granted now (EOS 650 and so on) those were both scarce at the time.
But I think I get the market environment they were made for and the actual market they found a lot better now.
Wait, what? I have always felt like the A series had flat averaging. Damn I need to reread my manual (AE-1 is literally the only hard copy manual for any camera that I physically have). I didn't know that.You said weighted you meant center weighted? Most cameras of the time including the A series had center weighted metering system. As for spot metering only the Olympus OM 3 and 4 had it but it was later than the A series. Spot metering didn't become the norm until much later.
Yes! The AE-1 was cheaper than the Nikkormat EL, The Pentax K2, The Olympus OM-2 and thus people who liked autoexposure went for it. I am not sure but I think it was even cheaper than the Minolta XE-7.Was the AE1 cheaper than the nikkormat el/fe new?
They're similarly featured, but it was the AE1 that got amateurs into SLR cameras - I guess it was the rebel of it's day
I never got into non F1 canon FD cameras - but AE1s have become hipster fodder, and definitely cost too much money relative to other cameras one can get
I'm suspicious of comparisons between film era lenses, and multi-element computer corrected optics designed for digital cameras. Nonetheless, I recently tried my Canon FD 50mm 1.4 at f5.6 on a 16mp X-Pro1. This gives a field of view equivalent to 75mm, a useful focal length. Incrementally increasing the size of the image, the shot was pin sharp at 45 inches. The badge on a distant bicycle could be clearly read, and fronds of moss between bricks were sharply rendered. With selective sharpening 60" would be possible.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.
It would almost have to be cheaper than the XE-7.Yes! The AE-1 was cheaper than the Nikkormat EL, The Pentax K2, The Olympus OM-2 and thus people who liked autoexposure went for it. I am not sure but I think it was even cheaper than the Minolta XE-7.
I mean we've established ITT that these FD optics were computer corrected... no surprise really. I dislike them in comparison to Minolta, Pentax and Nikon lenses just on the basis of those having artistically useful flaws, but I'm not one to deny the sharpness of 70's Canon lenses.I'm suspicious of comparisons between film era lenses, and multi-element computer corrected optics designed for digital cameras. Nonetheless, I recently tried my Canon FD 50mm 1.4 at f5.6 on a 16mp X-Pro1. This gives a field of view equivalent to 75mm, a useful focal length. Incrementally increasing the size of the image, the shot was pin sharp at 45 inches. The badge on a distant bicycle could be clearly read, and fronds of moss between bricks were sharply rendered. With selective sharpening 60" would be possible.
A nose-end sharp 4ft print inc. border from a 45 year old standard lens, on a hand held camera is pretty impressive. A 50mp camera would probably show its limitations, but few 35mm films would stretch lens resolution on the FDn.
It would almost have to be cheaper than the XE-7.
Come to think of it I wouldn't know how good the Canon FD lenses are. I never shot with a Canon. I didn't own Canon back in the days but although I had used other brands that I didn't own but not Canon. Today I own a number of Canon namely the AE-1, A-1, AE-1P, EF and the Canonet but I never shot with them.I mean we've established ITT that these FD optics were computer corrected... no surprise really. I dislike them in comparison to Minolta, Pentax and Nikon lenses just on the basis of those having artistically useful flaws, but I'm not one to deny the sharpness of 70's Canon lenses.
Which Canonet? I have the QL17 GIII. It resembles the original AE-1 in terms of its meter display and overall interface, at least to me.Come to think of it I wouldn't know how good the Canon FD lenses are. I never shot with a Canon. I didn't own Canon back in the days but although I had used other brands that I didn't own but not Canon. Today I own a number of Canon namely the AE-1, A-1, AE-1P, EF and the Canonet but I never shot with them.
I have the Canonet QL17 GIII. Bought for $3 in good condition. Shot a lot of blank with it but never with film.Which Canonet? I have the QL17 GIII. It resembles the original AE-1 in terms of its meter display and overall interface, at least to me.
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?