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

[macfred]

The Nikon EM was never very popular because Nikon's traditional constituency wouldn't be seen dead with an "automatic plastic camera"...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : The camera was originally designed and marketed to the growing market of new women photographers … :confused:
[video=youtube_share;NnbWqs-zfiI]http://youtu.be/NnbWqs-zfiI[/video]

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

And it is the only camera that I know of that it "followed" fashion to the point of everything being coordinated.
So, you have a Mk I and and a Mk II with different styles not only for the body, but also for the lenses, winder and flash.

BTW, talking of fashion: Nikon made a special case for the EM: the FB-E. It was a hard plastic case with compartments for body with the MD-E winder, the E35mm f/2.5 and the E100mm f/2.8, the SB-E flash and space for film. It was also yellow.
If anyone has one in the cupboard and now are too embarrassed to be seen with one, I'll gladly have it, especially if it still has the inserts.

 

[macfred]

A
BTW, talking of fashion: Nikon made a special case for the EM: the FB-E. It was a hard plastic case with compartments for body with the MD-E winder, the E35mm f/2.5 and the E100mm f/2.8, the SB-E flash and space for film. It was also yellow.
If anyone has one in the cupboard and now are too embarrassed to be seen with one, I'll gladly have it, especially if it still has the inserts.

Yes, that's nice …
Here's one for a very nice price http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-FB-E-PLASTIC-CAMERA-CASE-SUITS-NIKON-EM-/191400571114

 

[fstop]

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.

You'll have to forgive a non Nikon DSLR user's ignorance.



http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-An...-legacy-nikkor-lenses-with-the-nikon-df.html#!

 

[Chan Tran]

Used the AE-1 in its time quite a few times but never owned one as I am a Nikon guy. A couple weeks ago I picked up an AE-1 with the 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2.8 in perfect condition. They are OK though still don't think it's as good as an FE but then may be I am so used to the Nikon.

 

[benjiboy]

The AE 1 was a lot cheaper camera than the FE you can't compare Apple's and oranges the AE 1's claim to fame was that is was a good camera cheap.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Yes, that's nice …
Here's one for a very nice price http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-FB-E-PLASTIC-CAMERA-CASE-SUITS-NIKON-EM-/191400571114

Thanks, but 2 things:
1- it isn't complete as it is missing the bottom insert for the body.

2- there's no postage option for the UK.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

The AE 1 was a lot cheaper camera than the FE you can't compare Apple's and oranges the AE 1's claim to fame was that is was a good camera cheap.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

Very true Ben.
I wasn't comparing them, i.e. between them, but as an answer from these manufacturers to the Olympus OM smaller size.
As the OM-1 was introduced in 1972, it took a few years for all manufacturers to release models that were smaller than the previous generation, regardless of actual features.
Canon answered Olympus with the A series in 1975.
Pentax released its compact M series in 1976.
Nikon did similarly with the FM/FE in 1977/78.

 

[blockend]

Canon light meters have proved more reliable than Nikon's of the same era, in my experience. Of my five pre-owned Nikkormats, and F2AS none had a working meter, whereas all my Canon's still perform correctly.

 

[benjiboy]

It's about 28 years since they stopped making the AE1 and there's still millions of them around in perfect working order, I can't say personally I ever liked the camera but you have to admit that for Canon it was a tour de force in that they produced by using new highly automated production and assembly techniques a relatively cheap light weight and reliable auto exposure SLR camera that was capable of excellent results that almost any member of the family could use and they left the competition standing and really cleaned up financially because in those days there was nothing like them in the price range.

 

[flavio81]

You'll have to forgive a non Nikon DSLR user's ignorance.



http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-An...-legacy-nikkor-lenses-with-the-nikon-df.html#!

For me the Df is a bad joke. They should've put a big viewfinder with a split image focusing screen if they were serious about it. It's a bit like the Hasselblad Lunar: all form, zero substance.

 

[flavio81]

The AE 1 was a lot cheaper camera than the FE you can't compare Apple's and oranges the AE 1's claim to fame was that is was a good camera cheap.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

Yes. But i also like the FE more than the AE1. In fact if the FE had a smoother horizontal shutter and a bit more sturdy construction; it would be my favorite Nikon camera. It has everything in the right amounts.

Another overlooked one is the FG. If the FG had a stop down lever and the ability to mount pre-ai lenses, it would be a great camera.

 

[flavio81]

I remember vividly when the OM1 came out. Perhaps the Apple Macintosh of the camera world. Never owned one, never shot with one personally, nor am enclined to. Nothing against it, certainly. Just stating what was. As far as the topic of discussion, being the Canon AE1, it was no "reply" to the OM1. It was simply an early bird in incorporating plastic to reduce cost of a good piece of marketing. In that, the AE1 was not a bad camera. For what it was, it was actually quite good.

I did shoot with an Om2. The big viewfinder, for me, was a gimmick, because it compromises other things. I dont like the Zuiko lenses; for me, they are compromised because compactness was the main priority. Also the speed dial location makes operation a bit slower.

All in all, a small cute camera, but for what? I'd carry the F2AS or the F1 all day; and grab a FG or FE whenever i want compactness and lightness. New FD lenses are light enough and compact enough while having stellar performance.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes. But i also like the FE more than the AE1. In fact if the FE had a smoother horizontal shutter and a bit more sturdy construction; it would be my favorite Nikon camera. It has everything in the right amounts.

Another overlooked one is the FG. If the FG had a stop down lever and the ability to mount pre-ai lenses, it would be a great camera.

We were discussing Nikon equivalents to the AE1 Flavio there's no doubt that the Nikon FE was a better camera but it wasn't equivalent to the man in the street because it was a lot more expensive.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

Nikon FE?:confused:

 

[flavio81]

We were discussing Nikon equivalents to the AE1 Flavio there's no doubt that the Nikon FE was a better camera but it wasn't equivalent to the man in the street because it was a lot more expensive.

Yes I do agree with you.

And to reply to the above post; the FE was higher priced, it is a Shutter-priority type compared to the aperture-priority type of the FE and the AE1 has microprocessor control and a novel plastic construction. Also AE1 has horizontal cloth curtain, FE has vertical shutter, which is what Nikon put on their lower priced bodies.

 

[miha]

It took Nikon nearly 20 years to come up with the AE-1 equivalent, the FM10 (or is it FE10):w00t:

 

[1L6E6VHF]

It seems to me that the Canon AE-1 did have a huge impact on photography and the SLR, but, when I come to think of it, so much of its influence was semantics.

No small part of the success of the AE-1 was that Canon saw a huge marketplace and was highly effective in claiming it - selling SLR cameras to people who were not really into photography, not as a paid professional nor, even as an enthusiastic amateur. The market was baby boomers (fairly young in 1976) who may have felt that having an Instamatic X-15 hanging from their wrist belittled their self image.

Those who were not around then probably cannot imagine how much the advertising had to do with the AE-1's success. Their ad, showing a photographer taking pictures of a tennis pro, and then the tennis pro taking pictures of the photographer playing tennis, with the slogan "so advanced, it's simple", bombarded the TV airwaves (as the GEICO ads do today). The ad was even parodied by Saturday Night Live ("So simple, even Stevie Wonder can use it!").

The mass marketing caused many hobby and pro photogs to disrespect the AE-1 as a "toy", when nothing about the camera itself could be further from the truth, as the AE-1 was still a well made and highly competent imaging tool one expected and got from Canon.

I find it odd how much attention was put on the fact there was a microprocessor in the camera. It changed how the camera was made, but it did not really change what the AE-1 could do. It did the same things as the Konica T4 (which, to most is exactly what the TC did, as not many would pay for the optional extra autowinder).

Of course, to people who were not into learning photography, the AE-1 did have one huge drawback - it still did not have autofocus, and many an AE-1 buyer would get blurry prints back and stow the camera in a closet, which is why the AE-1 would be so available in the used market for years to come.

 

[benjiboy]

It seems to me that the Canon AE-1 did have a huge impact on photography and the SLR, but, when I come to think of it, so much of its influence was semantics.

No small part of the success of the AE-1 was that Canon saw a huge marketplace and was highly effective in claiming it - selling SLR cameras to people who were not really into photography, not as a paid professional nor, even as an enthusiastic amateur. The market was baby boomers (fairly young in 1976) who may have felt that having an Instamatic X-15 hanging from their wrist belittled their self image.

Those who were not around then probably cannot imagine how much the advertising had to do with the AE-1's success. Their ad, showing a photographer taking pictures of a tennis pro, and then the tennis pro taking pictures of the photographer playing tennis, with the slogan "so advanced, it's simple", bombarded the TV airwaves (as the GEICO ads do today). The ad was even parodied by Saturday Night Live ("So simple, even Stevie Wonder can use it!").

The mass marketing caused many hobby and pro photogs to disrespect the AE-1 as a "toy", when nothing about the camera itself could be further from the truth, as the AE-1 was still a well made and highly competent imaging tool one expected and got from Canon.

I find it odd how much attention was put on the fact there was a microprocessor in the camera. It changed how the camera was made, but it did not really change what the AE-1 could do. It did the same things as the Konica T4 (which, to most is exactly what the TC did, as not many would pay for the optional extra autowinder).

Of course, to people who were not into learning photography, the AE-1 did have one huge drawback - it still did not have autofocus, and many an AE-1 buyer would get blurry prints back and stow the camera in a closet, which is why the AE-1 would be so available in the used market for years to come.

A very good post , I used to sell these cameras professionally and agree that to the "happy snapper" who would often forget to focus not having auto focus was a drawback, but as far as I recall in those days even the AF systems in the available compact cameras worked on subject contrast and were very hit and miss especially in poor light and AF SLR's were not yet on the market, and once compact cameras with better auto focus systems and zoom lenses came on the market many SLR owners who weren't really enthusiast traded them in for them.

 

[Alan Gales]

I remember when the first Minolta Maxxum autofocus camera came out. Two customers were eying it in the glass case in the store I worked. One exclaimed to the other that the Maxxum was the greatest camera ever made. I guess to some people it was.

At the time I was shooting a Contax 139 and dreaming of owning a Hasselblad.

 

[Neer Taliyan]

Nikon EM

 

[AgX]

Those who were not around then probably cannot imagine how much the advertising had to do with the AE-1's success. Their ad, showing a photographer taking pictures of a tennis pro, and then the tennis pro taking pictures of the photographer playing tennis, with the slogan "so advanced, it's simple", bombarded the TV airwaves (as the GEICO ads do today). The ad was even parodied by Saturday Night Live ("So simple, even Stevie Wonder can use it!").

The mass marketing caused many hobby and pro photogs to disrespect the AE-1 as a "toy", when nothing about the camera itself could be further from the truth, as the AE-1 was still a well made and highly competent imaging tool one expected and got from Canon.

The AE-1 one was my second camera. I got it short after its introduction.

But I do not remember seeing any commercial for it at german tv. To my understanding its success here lay at the photo shops, selling a decent camera for a more than decent price.

I do not remember hearing any disrespective talk about the AE-1 either.

 

[blockend]

Early autofocus was appalling, especially with the slow kit zooms many cameras of that era were supplied with. A few years ago I bought a Minolta 500 and in anything less than bright contrasty light, it would hunt forever between minimum focus and infinity. Compared to the early generations of AF, manual focus was quick! In fact it was only toward the end of film that autofocus cameras lived up to their early promise.

For purists (of whom I knew quite a few) even in camera light meters were seen as a gimmick, I mean, "how can a camera know what I'm metering for?" was the received wisdom. People have to remember SLRs had iconic status in the 1970s and 80s, and anything that put one in the reach of people who knew nothing about photography was a commercial goldmine. Program exposure, which came on the Canon A-1, was another step in idiot proofing SLRs and was pitched as a photographic miracle, despite it being quite a specialised tool that required serious knowledge to predict the outcome. Nowadays, Program mode comes with every new camera.

 

[benjiboy]

I remember when the first Minolta Maxxum autofocus camera came out. Two customers were eying it in the glass case in the store I worked. One exclaimed to the other that the Maxxum was the greatest camera ever made. I guess to some people it was.

At the time I was shooting a Contax 139 and dreaming of owning a Hasselblad.

I remember when the Canon T90 came out Allan the design was so different from the way cameras looked in those days the shape was so organic and revolutionary it was like something from 25 years in the future which it proved almost to be https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...g.1.0.0l2j0i30l4j0i24l4.2472.7535.0.12230.9.9.

 

[flavio81]

Their ad, showing a photographer taking pictures of a tennis pro, and then the tennis pro taking pictures of the photographer playing tennis, with the slogan "so advanced, it's simple", bombarded the TV airwaves (as the GEICO ads do today).

Really sounds like an excellent ad. And let me say that one of the pleasures in my life has been to buy a Nikon FG so my girlfriend can go out and take pictures with me, (while i use the Nikon F2). A really small, light camera that can stay locked in the "P" (Program) mode, so she can concentrate on picture-making.

In fact one of the BEST things of the Canon A-1 was that you could lock it into "P" mode and then turn off the viewfinder. In this way you focus on making pictures with no technical details to distract you. I still miss my A-1... gave it away to my sister who told me that it was the best birthday gift she has ever received.

BTW my A-1 never ever failed.

he ad was even parodied by Saturday Night Live ("So simple, even Stevie Wonder can use it!").

LOL!!

Although Stevie Wonder is a bona fide musical genius, and he was able to program and master the ARP 2600 synthesizer, a thing with so many buttons and levers, that no camera comes close its level of complexity.