So who were these for?

[RLangham]

So for most cameras I can identify what market niche they were playing to. Like for instance, the OM-2 was for rich chicks and photojournalists who didn't need a system camera, but who needed precision and excellent handling. The Nikon F2 was for all kinds of professional photographers who used to complain that their cameras couldn't take the beating. The Pentax Spotmatic was for amateurs with a strong interest in taking good, presentable photographs.

But the Canon A series MYSTIFIES me. I started on an AE-1 Program that my mother sold a car to buy. I was ride-or-die for my AE-1 (original model) until it started capping. I've just bought an A-1 for five dollars and I like the features but...

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, hideously complicated to operate, seem to HATE being used in manual mode, and the lenses are only alright. What kind of photographer were they aimed at? And bear in mind that I have great affection for these cameras. I'm not knocking them, I just want to know what kind of person they were meant to appeal to. They clearly had massive success, but I don't understand their market niche.

 

[MattKing]

Your problem is that you weren't around when the A series Canons appeared.
At that time, 35mm SLRs were relatively rare, relatively expensive, mostly manual exposure and used by amateurs predominantly with slide film - mostly ASA 64 or slower.
An AE-1 offered wide availability, an extensive array of lenses and accessories, a relatively low price and shutter speed priority automatic exposure.
The shutter speed priority automatic exposure was really important to people who used slide film hand held.
I was working in retail when the AE-1 appeared. As a result, a lot of people moved up to an SLR (the AE-1) because of that shutter speed priority automatic exposure and the low price.
Also as a result, a lot of people switched over to Canon because of the extensive array of lenses and accessories, relatively low price and shutter speed priority automatic exposure.
Most of my AE-1 sales came from when I was working for Simpson Sears/Sears Canada. Sears had a really powerful partnership with Canon, and Canon sold a tremendous number of cameras through their stores.
And while you may see them as bulky, at the time they were actually smaller than the competition and the Canon predecessors, at least until Olympus made serious inroads with the OM-1.
And the lenses were much better than just alright. They were excellent.

 

[gordrob]

I switched from my Pentax screw mount camera to the Canon A1 primarily to get a better motor drive system. I ended up with two A1s both with motor drives and they got a lot of use over the years until I could afford a used Canon New F1. The lenses were,I thought, high quality and I acquired a lot of lenses and accessories to go with them. The macro lenses, bellows, Macro-Lite Flash and remote release got used a lot. Like Matt said the A series worked extremely well with slide film and the shutter speed priority automatic exposure system. I never had any regrets using the Canon cameras and the FD lenses.

 

[jimjm]

The Canon A-series was immensely popular at the time they were introduced (late 70's - early 80's) and Canon marketed the heck out of them. Great features, slightly smaller and lighter than normal SLR's with more advanced electronics at a reasonable price.
The AE-1 was my first SLR when I was in high school and I shot hundreds of rolls for the school yearbook with that camera. They were marketed to "advanced amateurs" and the range of FD lenses and accessories was only exceeded by Nikon.
To this day, a lot of A-series cameras are still usable and seem to still be pretty reliable. When Canon abandoned the FD mount a lot of those lenses really dropped in value, but they are excellent. They seem to be going back up in price these days as younger film photographers discover how good these cameras are.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Also adaptability to mirrorless and MFT mount cameras has driven up the price of FD lenses.

 

[AgX]

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, hideously complicated to operate, seem to HATE being used in manual mode, and the lenses are only alright.

"The [Canon FD] lenses are only alright". First time I hear such.

"They are bulky": I got larger, even japanese SLRs. I call the A series medium-sized. In any case the bulk should be compared to contemporary competing models.

The Canon A series was intended as autoexposure cameras, and then again as aperture controlled (shutter-speed priority) which made them standing out and what was mainly intended to beware of blurry photographs. But there was aperture-priority too, as cheaper alternative. Also there was a manual-only model, but seemingly not at all markets. At least here there hardly was interest in manual-only, or only by those wanting a cheap SLR. You seem to see that all from a today perspective, where all-manual may be more interesting as apposed to all-automated.

The A-1 here also was used by professionals.


A side note: I see the aspect of manual-only as vastly exagerrated, as there hardly were SLRs that yielded good use of that, as most TTL SLRs of that time lacked spot-metering.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

To coin a phrase "The Common Man" as in everyone who wanted a sophisticated but easy to use and affordable 35mm SLR. I had one in the '80s and used it to shoot many photos I still treasure. Have since switched to Nikon however own 3 AE-1 and a few FD lenses which get used on occasion. Honestly I can't see your appraisal of them. Makes little sense to me as a long time user because it is simply not my experience.

 

[Dan Fromm]

So for most cameras I can identify what market niche they were playing to. Like for instance, the OM-2 was for rich chicks and photojournalists who didn't need a system camera, but who needed precision and excellent handling. The Nikon F2 was for all kinds of professional photographers who used to complain that their cameras couldn't take the beating. The Pentax Spotmatic was for amateurs with a strong interest in taking good, presentable photographs.

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.

 

[AgX]

The OM system 1976:

 

[BrianShaw]

But there was aperture-priority too, as cheaper alternative.

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”?

 

[BrianShaw]

To coin a phrase "The Common Man" as in everyone who wanted a sophisticated but easy to use and affordable 35mm SLR.

BINGO

 

[AgX]

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 the meaning that the aperture-priority body cost less than the shutter-speed priority one.

 

[BrianShaw]

Cheaper in the meaning that the aperture-priority body cost less than the shutter-speed priority one.

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.

 

[AgX]

You still misunderstand me. I was referring to Canon A-series aperture-priority bodies having cost less than the Canon A-series shutter-speed priority ones.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As I see it, aperture priority wouldn't require the body to be able to directly control the lens aperture (via an actuator of some kind), just be able to stop down to the preset as all TTL metering SLRs had been doing since around 1960. Shutter priority, on the other hand, wouldn't require the body to have internal control of the shutter (leaving the option for battery-independent "limp" operation), but would require the body to be able to control the aperture -- which, on the face, seems more expensive to produce.

 

[BradS]

“....rich chicks and photojournalists who didn’t need a system “

too funny.

 

[BradS]

The Canon AE1 was for people who wanted a full featured SLR but didn’t want to spend three months take home pay for a similarly spec’d pro body. The AE1 only set you back about one months take home pay. As already said above, the common advanced amateur.

 

[BrianShaw]

You still misunderstand me. I was referring to Canon A-series aperture-priority bodies having cost less than the Canon A-series shutter-speed priority ones.

Okay... within Canon rather than between Canon and others. Which specific bodies are you referring? A1 v AE1; AE1 v AE1P?

I’m trying to understand not argue.

 

[AgX]

I meant the price difference between a sole aperture priority and a sole shutter-speed priority body.

 

[BrianShaw]

I meant the price difference between a sole aperture priority and a sole shutter-speed priority body.

Okay, so you can’t or won’t provide specifics to support your statement. That’s okay. Bye.

 

[AgX]

What do want? Me to dig in my archive to look for pricelists from the 70's, to give exact prices? I do not quite understand.

 

[BrianShaw]

What do want? Me to dig in my archive to look for pricelists from the 70's, to give exact prices? I do not quite understand.

That statement doesn’t ring true to me. I don’t recall that. I’m asking for more information. I’m asking you to do something, anything, to provide more information... not court-quality proof. But don’t worry, I lost interest.

 

[blockend]

What kind of photographer were they aimed at?

Same motivation as today, amateurs like cameras with bragging rights over their friends. I was around then, and knew no one who considered themselves serious about their photography, who bought an A-1. The T-90 followed a similar principle as did the EOS-1. The EOS 1 gained professional traction, because it had market leading autofocus. The only Canon people were serious about was the F-1 or FTb.

 

[RLangham]

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.

 

[DonW]

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.