So who were these for?

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

 

[blockend]

The Olympus OM-2 of 1975 had TTL flash. Not sure if this was its first implementation. Metz flashes were almost universal for pro use, or so it seemed at the time.

 

[MattKing]

The Olympus OM-2 of 1975 had TTL flash. Not sure if this was its first implementation.

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.

 

[AgX]

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.

F-1, EF and FTb used the CAT system.


Why they did not take it further with the A-series is enigmatic to me.

As indicated in post #119 ...

 

[Vilk]

And I never came across a photojournalist who used an OM.

 

[blockend]

One factor that determined the robustness of cameras for professional work, was the thickness of the baseplate. In situations with stock cameras and multiple users, council offices and police departments for example, it was not uncommon for ham-fisted users to distort the base by overtightening the tripod bush. Given enough draw, light leaks ensued. Even single user cameras could buckle bases and loosen screws if long lenses without central supports were standard. I trust my A-Series Canons less in that regard than the Nikons.

 

[AgX]

Institutions using stock cameras could have cemented a brass or steel plate arond the bushing (thoug that would hamper winder use). But I never saw amongst battered cameras such defect. But quite sure I never had stock cameras in hand. It also would depend on tripod mount design.

For the A -series Canon offered a cast-metal cage as tripod-mount, even usable for both orientations.

 

[Chan Tran]

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?

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.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, the CAT system didn't use the A series flashes that worked with the AE-1 et al.

 

[George Mann]

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

I didn't know that. Did this problem affect the FM series as well?

Edit: A quick search of the internet indicates that the FM series has the same resistive element unfortunately.

 

[BradS]

I thought that Nikon solved the ring resistor issue(s) back in the early 1970's with the DP-1 finders. I've never heard of anybody having issues with ring resistors on the FM, FE, FA bodies....not saying it didn't happen just seems like it wasn't a major issue.
I never had a Nikon FM but I did have three Nikon FE and a Nikon FA...none of these ever had ring resistor issues. I traveled quite a bit with two of the Nikon FE..one of them literally fell apart in the Peruvian jungle...I managed to hold it together with packaging tape until I got back to Lima and found somebody who could put the pieces back together.

 

[foc]

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 OTF system (off the film) was very advanced for its day.
The shutter curtain has a special pattern on it (see photo below). 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.
To my knowledge, this was on all models from OM2 onwards.
The OM10 has a front badge with the shutter pattern image, to advertise how "advanced" it was.

 

[Les Sarile]

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.

To be more precise, the OM2 had two sets of metering cels, two CDS cels in the viewfinder and two silicon blue cels in the metering box. From http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/om2/htmls/index2.htm In manual mode, "Firstly, on "MANUAL" mode, OM-2 works in exactly the same way as the OM-1, and has exactly the same performance."

Pentax refined this metering mode with the release of their LX by using only a single metering cel located in the mirror box and meters off the film in both manual or autoexposure mode. This single meter configuration was also adopted by Olympus in their OM3 and OM4 release. Like the OM2, the LX makes an initial reading prior to shutter release but monitors the scene lighting in real time and adjust exposure after.

 

[RLangham]

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

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.

 

[RLangham]

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.

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.

But at any rate there were already a lot of cameras with spot metering. The Mamiya TL and SX series, with m42 and m42-SX mounts respectively, (the latter is similar to the Pentax M42-SMC mount) both had a spot meter built in (the D models also have flat averaging.) I think some high-end German cameras also had it around the same time.

 

[GarageBoy]

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

 

[Chan Tran]

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

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[RLangham]

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.

It would almost have to be cheaper than the XE-7.

 

[RLangham]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

It would almost have to be cheaper than the XE-7.

I had a friend back then who really wanted the Olympus OM-2 but his money only bought the OM-1. Autoexposure was important to him so he bought the Canon AE-1.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

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.

 

[RLangham]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

I have the Canonet QL17 GIII. Bought for $3 in good condition. Shot a lot of blank with it but never with film.