What was the Nikon equivalent to the Canon AE-1 in the day...?

[Ricardo Miranda]

I sold mine ...

So did I! But I did manage to buy it back again after a change of heart.
It is a nice SLR, but a little heavy.
The only differences with the FE are the size, the motor drives are different and the lack of an ADR window.
Not much really.

 

[gone]

We're talking generalities here, as none of the Nikons were shutter priority, electronic, consumer cameras. In truth, there were no direct comparisons between the AE-1 cameras and the Nikons, although the EL was pretty close. But if we're talking automatic exposure, cheaply made, pretty much all electronic, and "relatively" cheap to buy, I still think the EM and the FG were cameras that a consumer might consider buying if they didn't want to buy a Canon AE-1 camera. Any "pro" Canon shooter was going to go w/ a FTb or an F1, any Nikon "pro" shooter was not going to go w/ a plastic fantastic EM or FG, they would use the top of the line Nikon of that era, or even a Nikkormat, which had proven itself to be a rugged and dependable camera. The EM and FG were pure amateur cameras, like the AE-1.

 

[benjiboy]

The reason that the Canon A series cameras were such a financial success for the company in those days and they sold literally millions of them is that they were using new microprocessor electronics and highly automated manufacturing techniques that enabled them to offer to the public excellent hi tech products cheaply, there was no competition because nobody was making anything like them in the price range at that time.

 

[fstop]

The reason that the Canon A series cameras were such a financial success for the company in those days and they sold literally millions of them is that they were using new microprocessor electronics and highly automated manufacturing techniques that enabled them to offer to the public excellent hi tech products cheaply, there was no competition because nobody was making anything like them in the price range at that time.

Rank amateurs could make good photographs with them easily and Canon did have decent glass.It brought 35 mm to the masses who were moving up from Kodunk Instamatics.Of course the users were impressed with their new cameras and those buyers were Canon's best sales tool.I recall when a friend got his AE-1, he couldn't stop talking about it and showing his pics.

 

[Xmas]

Only a few people who bought the F were pros.

 

[SJRichardson]

I too sold the AE-1 in the 70's and 80's. It was much easier explaining the shutter speed automatic vs. aperture automatic to the amateur consumer. Stopping action or depth of field priority. That darn breech mount was the worst part.

 

[Alan Gales]

I wouldn't call the EM an AE-1 equivilant because the EM did not have manual override on the shutter speeds.

I wouldn't either. Canon made an aperture preferred camera with no manual override. It was called the AV-1. I remember it well because is was my first 35mm camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_AV-1

 

[Alan Gales]

I too sold the AE-1 in the 70's and 80's. It was much easier explaining the shutter speed automatic vs. aperture automatic to the amateur consumer. Stopping action or depth of field priority.

Yeah, everyone wanted to stop action! I always preferred aperture priority over shutter priority but the masses wanted that shutter priority, that is until the AE-1 Program camera came out and everyone wanted Program mode.

 

[MattKing]

Shutter priority was very attractive to those who were used to Kodachrome II or, eventually, Kodachrome 64.

Sometimes it can be hard to remember what it was like to think of ASA 125 as a fast film.

 

[Alan Gales]

Shutter priority was very attractive to those who were used to Kodachrome II or, eventually, Kodachrome 64.

Sometimes it can be hard to remember what it was like to think of ASA 125 as a fast film.

Back in the day Kodachrome 25 was my film. I shot 64 ASA when I wanted something fast.

Yeah, I used a tripod a lot!

 

[Mick Fagan]

Canon back then, compared to Nikon, were a huge manufacturing business. Much of the technology that was developed or designed for the Canon range of photocopiers, in the electronic stuff that is, found its way to their cameras.

Nikon by comparison, was a very reserved company, very small company and not really what one would call a leader in flashy technology being built into their products.

I don’t believe there was any Nikon camera body remotely comparable to the Canon AE1, it was so far ahead of Nikon bodies it was almost another world.

I used Canon bodies of the day, including the AE1, loved it, but I went with Nikon (stayed with them actually after seriously thinking of jumping ship) mainly because in this country, and many others, there were literally thousands of second hand Nikkor lenses to be had, compared to a minimal range of Canon lenses around second hand. Pentax had the biggest following and the biggest range of second hand lenses, but these were mainly zoom lenses, their prime lenses were few and far in-between.

I am a Nikon man through and through, but realistically, Canon has almost always had a superior product at any given time in the seventies, eighties and nineties. Before that time frame and after that time frame, I really don’t know as I was running rangefinders in the sixties (Canon ) and any new old stuff I get these days is usually 4x5”.

Mick.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

An interesting pictorial timeline of various cameras from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax:

http://minolta.eazypix.de/slrtable/

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

An interesting pictorial timeline of various cameras from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax:

http://minolta.eazypix.de/slrtable/

That's cool. Wow, Pentax and Minolta were on FIRE in the 70's...

 

[flavio81]

Just as mentioned, back in 1976 the technology of the AE1 made all Nikons seem like old steam powered water-wheel boats; there was nothing like it; it was the first camera with an onboard microprocessor. Canon ate Nikon's lunch overnight!!

The EM has a build quality slightly inferior to the AE1; and is a direct competitor to the Canon AV-1. The FG can be seen as a competitot of the AE-1 PROGRAM, though.

All in all Canon during the late 70s was a far bigger company than Nikon and invested a huge R&D budget in cameras and in lenses. I own nice Nikon gear, the pro classics (F, F2) but the ones with the superior technology were the Canon guys.

PS: I've yet to find a fully working EM on the secondhand stores around, while most AE1s here on the same stores, are working.

 

[benjiboy]

Only a few people who bought the F were pros.

That's true and not only Nikon F's, if only pro's bought professional cameras in general made by any company they wouldn't exist because the market is too small to justify the enormous R&D costs of bringing out a new model for the quantity they would sell wouldn't be financially viable for the manufacturers.

 

[flavio81]

I am a Nikon man through and through, but realistically, Canon has almost always had a superior product at any given time in the seventies, eighties and nineties.

I salute your honesty. I love my Nikon F, F2AS, and the FE has just the right amount of everything; but only the Canon F-1N makes me drool and feel an attraction for it that borders on the fetish... Lenses i feel MF Nikkors are better built, overall.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

This continues to be interesting. Another thing that prompted me to post this question was a recent FS ad here where the seller had to drop his AE-1 (with lens) to $10 to get it to move. Even if Canon ate Nikon's lunch during that AE-1 period it seems Nikon cameras of the day, bother better and inferior, mostly sell for more now. Maybe because there's so darn many AE-1 cameras out there?

 

[blockend]

The AE-1 cleaned up because it was considerably cheaper than any of the competition when it was launched and for some time after. Canon were always a technically advanced company compared to Nikon, whose buyers were relatively conservative. Whether photographers actually needed those advances, is a moot point.

Personally I was never a fan of shutter priority automatic exposure, and the AE-1 is the only A or T-series Canon I don't own. Someone mentioned the AV-1, a full auto aperture priority camera of which I'm a fan. A number of companies brought out ultra simplified cameras when SLRs were the thing to be seen with but "too difficult to use", the Pentax MV being one of them. Perhaps the most radically simple P&S SLR was the Konica FP-1, which was fully automatic and took conventional Konica lenses but only shot at f2.8, f5.6 and f11, even though the scene was viewed at maximum aperture! Back in the 1970s and 80s people wanted the pro look, now fixed lens rangefinders of the same era sell for much more than SLRs of an equivalent price.

The Nikon EM was never very popular because Nikon's traditional constituency wouldn't be seen dead with an "automatic plastic camera", and the E-series lenses were seen as being cheap and poor quality. In fact some of the E lenses were excellent, and the EM, like many entry level camera of that era, are still going strong thirty to forty years later.

 

[Alan Gales]

Even if Canon ate Nikon's lunch during that AE-1 period it seems Nikon cameras of the day, bother better and inferior, mostly sell for more now. Maybe because there's so darn many AE-1 cameras out there?

Another point is that Nikon kept the same lens mount. You can swap your lens collection back and forth between your old Nikon 35mm and your new Nikon DSLR so you have the choice between the great look of film or the ease of digital capture.

 

[flavio81]

This continues to be interesting. Another thing that prompted me to post this question was a recent FS ad here where the seller had to drop his AE-1 (with lens) to $10 to get it to move. Even if Canon ate Nikon's lunch during that AE-1 period it seems Nikon cameras of the day, bother better and inferior, mostly sell for more now. Maybe because there's so darn many AE-1 cameras out there?

It depends on the camera model. AE-1s are plentiful and cheap. Nikon EMs here are plentiful and sell for cheap. But curiously the most expensive 35mm secondhand camera i've bought was a mint Canon F-1N. I could have bought about three locally-sourced Nikon F3 cameras for the money of that one. It depends on the rarity. Nikon F3, F2 and F are relatively common here, compared to the F-1 models.

 

[flavio81]

Another point is that Nikon kept the same lens mount. You can swap your lens collection back and forth between your old Nikon 35mm and your new Nikon DSLR so you have the choice between the great look of film or the ease of digital capture.

That's more or less a myth.

G-series lenses, which is what Nikon sells mostly nowadays, are plainly incompatible with all manual-focus Nikon cameras. The diaphragm will always close to f22 or f32 on those, rendering the lens unusable.

Pre-AI lenses are incompatible with all full frame Nikon DSLRs. They won't mount. And those lenses include the best built lenses Nikon ever made, so this is a big issue for me. AI conversion? That's butchering a lens, messing down with history!

What is fully compatible? only AI and AF (plain AF) lenses. No, but wait... AF lenses won't do auto-focus with cameras without an in-camera motor. Ok, that's a minor problem.

With Canon is very easy:

All FD and FL lenses work with all FD-mount or FL-mount manual focus cameras (A-series, T-series, F-series).

All EF lenses work with ALL EF-mount cameras; early 1987 EF lenses work on the latest DSLR cameras and the latest EF lenses work in the 1987 Canon EOS 650.

... and i can mount practically all Nikon F-mount lenses on the EF cameras via an adapter.

 

[miha]

SNIP
What is fully compatible? only AI and AF (plain AF) lenses. No, but wait... AF lenses won't do auto-focus with cameras without an in-camera motor. Ok, that's a minor problem.

Its even worse as AI lenses wont even meter on the lower-end DSLRs.

 

[trythis]

Ai wont meter on a lot of later af slrs. N80,n65, etc


Typos made on a tiny phone...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Canon gets credit for making a tough decision in 1987 to switch to the new EOS mount with electronic focus (EF) and electronic aperture lenses. Yet, time has proven this was the correct decision - as any 1987+ EOS body will work with any 1987+ EF lens to this very day.

Yet, Nikon has maintained a roughly 20-year sliding time frame of compatibility that endeared them to photographers who wanted to continue to use their existing lenses.

This is best seen here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

The pre-AI lenses are good for the 1959-1979 era of the F and F2 (...and the new Df!)

The AI/AIS lenses are the most flexible of all, usable all the way from the F to the D4, Df, though with some bodies you won't have full metering ability. Obviously these are always focussed manually.

The AF (AF-D, AF-S) lenses can also be used on the F, F2 with limitations, all the way to the F6 and to the D4, Df Some bodies will require that the lens be focussed manually. With some, they won't meter.

The G lenses work from the F4 (but no Aperture-priority or Program modes), and fully from the F5 through D4, Df.

Lenses with VR work from the F5 onwards.

So, I think both Nikon and Canon have done a great job with their lens mount strategies, albeit in different ways.

 

[Alan Gales]

That's more or less a myth.

G-series lenses, which is what Nikon sells mostly nowadays, are plainly incompatible with all manual-focus Nikon cameras. The diaphragm will always close to f22 or f32 on those, rendering the lens unusable.

Pre-AI lenses are incompatible with all full frame Nikon DSLRs. They won't mount. And those lenses include the best built lenses Nikon ever made, so this is a big issue for me. AI conversion? That's butchering a lens, messing down with history!

What is fully compatible? only AI and AF (plain AF) lenses. No, but wait... AF lenses won't do auto-focus with cameras without an in-camera motor. Ok, that's a minor problem.

With Canon is very easy:

All FD and FL lenses work with all FD-mount or FL-mount manual focus cameras (A-series, T-series, F-series).

All EF lenses work with ALL EF-mount cameras; early 1987 EF lenses work on the latest DSLR cameras and the latest EF lenses work in the 1987 Canon EOS 650.

... and i can mount practically all Nikon F-mount lenses on the EF cameras via an adapter.

Yes, there are exceptions and limitations but I wouldn't call it a myth. There are lots of older Nikkor lenses that work well with the digital cameras. If you don't mind manual focus on a DSLR you can find some great old manual ficus Nikkor glass for a lot less money than the latest Nikkor autofocus lenses for DSLR's.