So who were these for?

[Huss]

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.

That's about 25% more. Not a minor difference.

 

[Chan Tran]

That's about 25% more. Not a minor difference.

But how many times an F1N would cost over and A1 today?

 

[Chan Tran]

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.
Not to pick nits, but both cameras are also valued less today than the prices you quoted.

Yes because you checked the price in 1982.
Here are the prices in 1981
https://books.google.com/books?id=r...bs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=B&H&f=false

 

[AgX]

I'm actually surprised how expensive the A-1 [was] compared to the Minolta XD11.

That is the reason that it was produced in much smaller numbers than the AE-1.

 

[woodlandSerenade]

Yes because you checked the price in 1982.
Here are the prices in 1981
https://books.google.com/books?id=rzH31j84pn8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=B&H&f=false

I've found the source of the confusion. What B&H is calling an F1-N in your reference is actually what we would term an F-1n today. Both David and myself were referring to the Canon New F-1 that came out new in September 1981, not the refreshed F-1n from 1976.

 

[Chan Tran]

Here's an Adorama ad from Pop Photo 1982 showing prices fir the A-1, New F-1, F3 and others.

Full size version -> http://www.fototime.com/AE43A0F6C6874B3/orig.jpg

No surprise how expensive the three kings were - F3, New F-1 and LX. But I'm actually surprised how expensive the A-1 is compared to the Minolta XD11.

You will find that the price of the FA is also very high. I guess P mode was big back then.

 

[Chan Tran]

I've found the source of the confusion. What B&H is calling an F1-N in your reference is actually what we would term an F-1n today. Both David and myself were referring to the Canon New F-1 that came out new in September 1981, not the refreshed F-1n from 1976.

Yeah I wasn't sure which of the F1 was in the ads. Canon naming didn't help. But I do remember the price of the A-1 and the Nikon counterpart FA were too high. They were priced too close to the top of the line.

 

[Les Sarile]

You will find that the price of the FA is also very high. I guess P mode was big back then.

Yeah, would be another year before the FA makes it to an ad as this was from 1982.

 

[flavio81]

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.

Maybe here F-1-n refers to the 1976 model which was already behind the new model. The New F-1, i assure you wasn't just 25% more than a A-1. I have seen the price lists. Will find them out again.

 

[flavio81]

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.
Not to pick nits, but both cameras are also valued less today than the prices you quoted.

QED

I've found the source of the confusion. What B&H is calling an F1-N in your reference is actually what we would term an F-1n today. Both David and myself were referring to the Canon New F-1 that came out new in September 1981, not the refreshed F-1n from 1976.

QED

And now here's a magazine clip, aug 1982:

 

[miha]

Yeah, would be another year before the FA makes it to an ad as this was from 1982.

Indeed, FA was released in '83, five years after the A-1 from Canon, and it shows. The two cameras are worlds apart technology-wise. It took Canon another 3 years to catch up (still no evaluative metering though).

 

[George Mann]

The shutter speed priority automatic exposure was really important to people who used slide film hand held.

I can see its value hand held in low light. But I find aperture priority to be preferable otherwise, and always thought it to be a mistake for Canon not to provide both.

 

[George Mann]

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

I have to agree as I find their lenses to be rather cold and sterile.

 

[George Mann]

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.

The main weakness of the FE, as well as all of the non pro Nikon models of its generation is that it has a resistive metering ring underneath its ASA selector that is known to crack or break, rendering the meter useless.

The meter ring in the earlier EL series seems to be free of this defect.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Canon never used the designation “F-1N” for the New F-1. The confusion between the F-1n and “F-1N” I think comes from internet forums. I never use it either.

 

[dynachrome]

When you think about the intended buyer for a particular camera, you have to account for the lag between the initial design idea and the final product. When Honda introduced the Element SUV, it was aimed at young people. Almost all the people I saw driving them were older.

The A series was going to be Canon's platform for all of thr SLR buyers who weren't going for an F-1. The AE-1 was for people who wanted a camera which was simple to use but which allowed manual control. The later AV-1 was sold as a point & shoot SLR. I think the AT-1 was the last gasp of the A series (unless that was the AL-1). The most interesting models were the AE-1 Program and the A-1. I have one of each of these along with both winder versions, three Motor Drive MA units and one 12-AA battery pack. The battery packs are not so easy to find by themselves now.

I also find the A series cameras awkward to use in manual mode. I like using the AE-1 Program because I can change the focusing screens. There is a plain matte screen in now (C) and I also have a grid screen ( D). These screens make using macro lenses, longer lenses and zooms more pleasant. I don't know how many people took advantage of this feature. The A-1 was the more feature packed model but it's focusing screens were considered "factory interchangeable." in the end, these were all cameras with horizontal cloth shutters. They had slow flash synch speeds and no TTL flash metering. That feature wouldn't appear until until the T99. The Nikon F3 would have it in 1980 and tge Minolta X700 would have it in 1981. Today, I prefer to use an F-1 (any version), an FTb, a TLb or sometimes an EF. This year I started to get more A series accessories and have used the AE-1 Program for family photos. I suppose the A series cameras were a transitional series and gained Canon valuable experience in electronics. It was too expensive for Canon to upgrade the F-1 more frequently and by the time its AF cameras came out, a new camera with interchangeable finders was not in the cards. How does the A-1 compare to the Minolta XD-11? I don't especially like either of them. I think the XD-11 is more pleasant to use and gas a nicer finder. It also has factory interchangeable screens. The XK and XK Motor models allowed you to change screens yourself.

 

[RLangham]

When you think about the intended buyer for a particular camera, you have to account for the lag between the initial design idea and the final product. When Honda introduced the Element SUV, it was aimed at young people. Almost all the people I saw driving them were older.

The A series was going to be Canon's platform for all of thr SLR buyers who weren't going for an F-1. The AE-1 was for people who wanted a camera which was simple to use but which allowed manual control. The later AV-1 was sold as a point & shoot SLR. I think the AT-1 was the last gasp of the A series (unless that was the AL-1). The most interesting models were the AE-1 Program and the A-1. I have one of each of these along with both winder versions, three Motor Drive MA units and one 12-AA battery pack. The battery packs are not so easy to find by themselves now.

I also find the A series cameras awkward to use in manual mode. I like using the AE-1 Program because I can change the focusing screens. There is a plain matte screen in now (C) and I also have a grid screen ( D). These screens make using macro lenses, longer lenses and zooms more pleasant. I don't know how many people took advantage of this feature. The A-1 was the more feature packed model but it's focusing screens were considered "factory interchangeable." in the end, these were all cameras with horizontal cloth shutters. They had slow flash synch speeds and no TTL flash metering. That feature wouldn't appear until until the T99. The Nikon F3 would have it in 1980 and tge Minolta X700 would have it in 1981. Today, I prefer to use an F-1 (any version), an FTb, a TLb or sometimes an EF. This year I started to get more A series accessories and have used the AE-1 Program for family photos. I suppose the A series cameras were a transitional series and gained Canon valuable experience in electronics. It was too expensive for Canon to upgrade the F-1 more frequently and by the time its AF cameras came out, a new camera with interchangeable finders was not in the cards. How does the A-1 compare to the Minolta XD-11? I don't especially like either of them. I think the XD-11 is more pleasant to use and gas a nicer finder. It also has factory interchangeable screens. The XK and XK Motor models allowed you to change screens yourself.

The AE-1P didn't have TTL flash?

 

[AgX]

No. The first Canon to have such was the T90.

Keep in mind that the non-Canon cameras mentioned in the post above all came after the A-series, which already started in 1976.

 

[RLangham]

No. The first Canon to have such was the T90.

In retrospect i dont know why i would have thought it did, since it's obviously too early and basic too. I think the last time I used flash on an AE-1P was when I was first learning photography and didn't understand what my camera was capable of. As I recall the pictures with flash did not often come out very well, though the lab tech, John, did try to correct for them.
They had a dedicated flash gun with a sonic rangefinder or a CdS cell that would tell the camera what aperture to use, did they not? I think I confused that with TTL metering and thought my basic Vivitar flash would have automation on that body. I was new, what can I say?

 

[Chan Tran]

The main weakness of the FE, as well as all of the non pro Nikon models of its generation is that it has a resistive metering ring underneath its ASA selector that is known to crack or break, rendering the meter useless.

The meter ring in the earlier EL series seems to be free of this defect.

The EL isn't a pro model and yet the pro model the F3's FRE is also subject to cracking too.

 

[blockend]

Long time ago I had a friend who bought an A-1 when it first came out. As time wore on the A-1 price dropped relative to the F-1, which didn't fall (much). This was fairly typical of professional cameras - pro in the eye of the manufacturer, not the user.

 

[AgX]

[The A-series cameras] had a dedicated flash gun with a sonic rangefinder or a CdS cell that would tell the camera what aperture to use, did they not?

No, they did not have sonic rangefinder.
And the CDS cell was the standard for autoexposure flashes.

But from the preceeding models some FD-lenses of that period had a stud for a dedicated front-ring by which a dedicated flash could be controlled by distance and not by reflected light as otherwise standard then with autoexposure flashes.
Of course distance-controlled autoexposure gave better exposures. But that system was seemingly hardly used over here. I never came across any of the dedicated front-rings.

 

[RLangham]

No they did not have sonic rangefinder.
And the CDS cell was the standard for autoexposure flashes.

But from the preceeding models some FD-lenses of that period had a stud for a dedicated front-ring by which a dedicated flash could be controlled by distance and not by reflected light as otherwise standard then with autoexposure flashes.
Of course distance-controlled autoexposure gave better exposures. But that system was seemingly hardly used over here. I never came across any of the dedicated front-rings.

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?

 

[AgX]

Even the T70 from 1984, and thus preceeding the T90, did not have flash TTL.

But this model was built on budget, as it even lacks DOF-preview, which should only have costed cents, so to say.

 

[MattKing]

But from the preceeding models some FD-lenses of that period had a stud for a dedicated front-ring by which a dedicated flash could be controlled by distance and not by reflected light as otherwise standard then with autoexposure flashes.

Correct.
Essentially the same as the Canolite D system built into the Canonet cameras.
It was called the Canon Auto Tuning ("CAT") system, was available for the FTb and required a Canon 103A flash, IIRC.