Why does the Canon F-1 seem to get relatively little love?

benjiboy said:

I have 2 Canon F 1n's and 2 Canon New F1- AE's I have been shooting with for more than 25 years, and I have never found any significant difference in the build quality

Click to expand...

Its a subjective impression: some people notice, most don't. Speaking only for myself, the original mechanical Canon F-1 gave the impression of being a step above every other SLR in fit and finish, notably better than the Nikon F and even a bit above the Nikon F2. The later electromechanical F-1 New was also very well built, but didn't blow me away like the older F-1. The Canon F-1 New feels (to me) about the same as the Nikon F-3: still nice, but a shade below the first Canon F-1 and the Nikon F-2. This is almost to be expected, as global economic forces and surging volume of camera sales in 1979 led to different efficiency-centered methods of camera mfrg that lost some of the "hand made billet" appeal of the older models.

I sold Canon cameras back then (late 1970s) in a camera department of a department store - the largest volume Canon dealer by far in Canada.
We could order Canon F-1s, but they weren't regular sales items. AFAIK, we never sold one in the time I was there.
The advanced amateur market back then that would have considered choosing between a Canon F-1 and a Nikon F2 was absolutely tiny. Almost all of those customers were looking to the AE-1, AE-1 Program or A-1 instead (on the Canon side - we didn't sell Nikon).
The people who sold Nikon F2s or Canon F-1s were few in our market and were generally not even courting the amateur market.
Of all the photographers that I knew back then I only knew one who was not a working professional who owned that class of camera - a Canon F-1 in that case.

mcrokkorx said:

All of that changed when Canon made the bold decision to throw FD under the bus in favor of a clean-sheet new AF mount with EOS. Practically overnight, the superiority of Canon's in-lens AF coupled with the optical performance of their EF "L" 300mm f/2.8 blew Nikon out of the water.

Click to expand...

At the time I was researching D/SLR camera systems before buying, the Nikon 1 system was still alive. Though maligned, it was Nikon's much belated and miniaturized attempt to introduce and design a fully electronic lens mount, a move akin to Canon's FD->EF. Newer F-mount lenses removed aperture rings and then mechanical aperture linkage moving towards a 'more' electronic mount, but still retained physical focus/zoom rings and the f-mount itself. Interesting to see in hindsight how each have handled engineering challenges over the decades.

I agree with the sentiment that introducing a totally new electronic mount allows for radical improvements in lens design; the Nikkor 1 30-110mm on tubes is an extraordinarily capable lens but suffers from build quality issues (mine broke).

This is definitely the wrong thread to be rambling on about Nikon... I'll see myself out

In terms of film cameras, the only other brand with out the gate full electronic AF mount with in lens motors was Sigma SA7 and 9. Minolta, Nikon and Pentax all used gear driven lens although Minolta used electronic aperture control in manual mode.

mcrokkorx said:

Ah, but remember the FM3A is out in Nikon La La Exotic Land along with the FM2T, so asking/selling prices can't be logically compared with garden-variety cameras of any make or model (unless its another goofball low-volume esoteric). The FM3A sells for a princely sum primarily because its a fairly rare (thus collectible) camera with the scarce, cult-y (and again highly collectible) feature of AE electro-mechanical shutter thats fully operational at all speeds with or without battery.

Click to expand...

I got another theory which has nothing to do with technical features or rarity: FM3A appeals to a younger audience who may have lusted after one in their youth, and who can now finally have one of their own, 15 years since it disappeared from shops. Nikon borrowed heavily upon the FM3A's styling for their Zfc mirrorless camera, and look who they are targeting now:
https://www.nikon-image.com/sp/zfc/

When it comes to the nostalgia factor, I think interest often reaches a peak at some point, then cools. And it seems to me that the market for many items including Barnack Leicas, Nikon rangefinders, German Contax, Leica M2, M3, M4, and early Nikon F was once much hotter than it is today. Canon for whatever reason has tended to fly under the radar save for genuine rarities like the Hansa-Canon. Whether the F-1 will be "rediscovered" in the future, I have no idea, but they're certainly nice shooters aren't they?

I remember years ago I had a conversation with my cousin a Nikon shooter. I said the problem with Nikons is that the focusing barrel is backwards on their lenses.

Both are great cameras and it comes down what you're used to. I've used Canon since the early 80's and love their FD lenses.

Old Gregg said:

Focusing doesn't bother me much, but changing lenses does, for some reason...

Click to expand...

That's something I used to say to myself every time I picked up a Pentax 67...

When the Canon F-1 first came out, I was still in 8th Grade. Later that year I started High School, got a Konica Autireflex T2 and joined the camera club. For years, the only non-Konica I really used was a Yashica Mat 124G. I saw ads in the camera magazines for other cameras, including the Canons. I started collecting in about 1988 and built up a nice set of Minolta cameras and lenses - all manual focus. At some point I wanted a camera with interchangeable finders and focusing screens. I asked my repairman about the Minolta XK. He said he couldn't recommend it because of reliability issues and a lack of spare
parts. I asked about the Nikon F2 and the Canon F-1. Although he was partial to the F2 and showed me his personal example, he thought the F-1 would be OK. I didn't really care for the large F2 meter prisms and got my first F-1. By then I already had some FL and FD bodies and a small set of Canon lenses. After a short time, I got a second F-1. Both were overhauled. I used them for seventeen years with just one repair, a shutter brake on one camera. I then had both overhauled and proceeded to get two New F-1 bodies overhauled. In the last two years I had one more F-1 overhauled, one F-1n overhauled and many New F-1s overhauled. Before all of this happened I had collected and used many Nikons and Nikkormats. Of the F series, I have one F3 and a number of F2s. For me, it isn't Nikon vs. Canon. It's Nikon and Canon (and many others). Why do I prefer the Canon F-1 cameras to the Nikon F2s and why do I think Canon didn't get as much respect initially?

It's true that the Nikon F proved to be more adaptable and upgradeable that the Canonflex cameras. I don't care for the Nikon F. I don't like the placement of the shutter button and I especially don't like the large meter prisms and the fact that there was no metering with other finders. I also prefer the method of finder removal on the Canon F-1 cameras. The last thing is that Nikon did not make a finder like the Canon Speed Finder. The Canon cameras I have been using most lately are New F-1s with the Finder FN and a D (grid) screen. I have New F-1s with AE finders too. I even have a spare working AE finder.

The Nikon F and F2 cameras offered steady improvement in metering. Canon might have changed from CdS to SBC when the the F-1n came out in 1976. Canon users got SBC metering in the 1974 EF but would have to wait until 1981 to see it in an F-1. Even full aperture TTL metering did not appear in a breech lock Canon SLR until the F-1 and FTb models of 1971 Neither the Canon F-1 nor the Nikon F2 had exposure automation built in and the attachments needed to give them exposure automation were clumsy, slow and expensive. It was easier to build that into completely new cameras. I have a working Canonflex RM. Just lifting it tells you how well made it must be but it's much slower to use than even a Nikkormat FT. From a sales standpoint, Canon took too long between the end of the Canonflex line and the introduction of the F-1. The market for system cameras was only so large during this time and there were other models like Topcon, Exakta and even the rare Pentacon Super. By 1971 there were more people who could afford system cameras and who knew how to use them. These were the advanced amateurs. Yes, there were some people who didn't really know how to use cameras and who wore them as jewelry. At my brother's 8th Grade graduation someone showed up with a Nikon F2 with an 80-200 Nikkor and a Rollei E36RE flash. I came with a borrowed Koni-Omega with a 58/5.6 and a Metz 403 flash. The photographer, who was using a 4X5 camera and who told the kids not to move looked at my camera and gave me a dirty look.

I enjoy using many different cameras, including Nikon and Canon models. They are both competent picture takers in the right hands. Could Canon have made the F-1 earlier? I don't think it could have been made in 1959 or even a few years later. Technology is a moving thing. For now, most Canon F-1 cameras can still be repaired. This may not always be the case and maybe that's why I have so many of them. I will probably stop working before my last F-1 does. I am starting to agree with Benjiboy that carrying two Canon F-1s is beginning to be a little much. What about the Nikon F2s? There's always Sover Wong and his queue. I find it easier to get Nikkormats overhauled and a lot faster and I enjoy using them too. One more, an FT3, should be coming back to me soon. If you think about it, in 1965 you could buy a Nikkormat FT with full aperture TTL metering and with a slightly annoying aperture indexing for each lens. What did Canon have? The FX, with an external meter cell. I have FX, FP, FT QL, TL QL and Pellix (not QL) cameras and a nice selection of FL lenses and I enjoy using them. This is true even though they were all, except for the Pellix, outdated when they were introduced. In 1963 the Topcon RE Super came out. In late 1965 the Konica Auto Reflex came out. In 1966 the Minolta SRT 101 appeared. In 1968 there was the Konica Autoreflex T. All of these cameras had features missing in those same years from the Canon offerings. That's why Nikon was ahead of Canon for so long. I think that from 1971 until the beginning of the AF age in 1985, Canon and Nikon both made very nice and up to date models. I do fault Canon for one more thing. The only manual focus film camera Canon had with TTL flash metering was the T90. It was a very long wait.

dynachrome said:

For me, it isn't Nikon vs. Canon. It's Nikon and Canon (and many others).

Click to expand...

If I could give this a thousand thumbs up, I would.

In 35mm, even tho my go-to is a Nikon F2AS, I also kept and occasionally use my Minolta XD-11, Pentax Spotmatic SP1000, Olympus OM-1n and Konica Autoreflex T3. If I ever find another nice original Canon F-1 again, it too will join the team.

In 6x6 medium format, I favor my Mamiya C220f TLR system but my Hasselblad runs neck and neck with it, and cheering them from the sidelines is my Mamiya Universal Press 6x9 rangefinder.

mcrokkorx said:

Its a subjective impression: some people notice, most don't. Speaking only for myself, the original mechanical Canon F-1 gave the impression of being a step above every other SLR in fit and finish, notably better than the Nikon F and even a bit above the Nikon F2. The later electromechanical F-1 New was also very well built, but didn't blow me away like the older F-1. The Canon F-1 New feels (to me) about the same as the Nikon F-3: still nice, but a shade below the first Canon F-1 and the Nikon F-2. This is almost to be expected, as global economic forces and surging volume of camera sales in 1979 led to different efficiency-centered methods of camera mfrg that lost some of the "hand made billet" appeal of the older models.

Click to expand...

They are that different eh.?

I have never held an original F-1 or F-1n.
My only experience is with the F-1 New.

It has been a few years since i sold my F3.
I cannot remember what i thought about its handling.
I did not like the Meter, View Finder display at all. So i sold the F3 and kept my F2-S.
The F-1 New is probably a bit more comfy in my hands. but i cherish both cameras equally.

I was at Sears Point 2 weeks ago for a "Vintage Auto Race".
LOTS of awesome cars..!!!
I was trying to photo a couple of 5.0 liter Corvettes.....when i hear a guy say, "Those are gorgeous".
I look at the guy and say "I am not really a Corvette guy, but the white and red one is great".

The guy says... "No i am talking about your Nikons".
He then called to his friend ..... Hey Sam, take a look at these beautiful F2's

They were both photographers, both about 65 years old and both enamored with my pair of Nikons

They had both given up on film almost 20 years ago.
I let one of them shoot a few frames out in the sunlight. We were in a garage at that moment, and the FP4 was struggling with anything but a wide open lens. They had gotten spoiled by the high ASA capability of a modern D-SLR.

As much as they loved seeing and holding the F2-S..........neither of them missed film or had any desire to be in a darkroom again.
Right then, a friend of a friend wandered by, and he was shooting a Mamiya C330.
They honestly had no idea that people were still shooting film and were MORE Shocked that some of us still have (and love) a darkroom.

I had one of the first models. It was an impressively built camera camera that could be used as a weapon for sure. A few times people came up and told me they used one like it when they worked for a newspaper years ago.

Canon's decision to orphan their lens mount w/ no forward compatibility surely made a lot of Canon people angry, w/ some going to Nikon. Nikon didn't abandon their mount, and there were plenty of 3rd party lenses to use on them as well.

If I was shooting street and assignments for a newspaper though, the F1 would not be my first choice. They're too big and heavy, especially w/ a fast, breech mount lens attached. You could put a Leicaflex, F1 and Nikkormat in a sack and use it to anchor your boat.

This thread has been a joy to read, thanks to everyone so far for sharing their thoughts.

I'm from the generation where I remember my parents getting a digital camera and being in absolute awe that you could take as many pictures as you wanted then go back and delete the bad ones. That was a big deal because it meant they would actually let me hold it without warning me not to take a picture on accident... So film for me has been a bit more discovery than rediscovery.

I have an F-1(old) I bought on ebay mostly because I had a few of my dad's FD lenses and was looking for an upgrade from his old T50. But this is the video that pushed me over the edge; the TTL meter is super interesting and the build quality is so far away from anything you can buy today. It's really a refreshing object of engineering and art.

Ugh- I just noticed the youTube videos posted here tend to show the exquisite 1st-gen Canon F-1 mismatched with the later tacky post-AE-1 "New FD" lenses: BLECCCCHH!

Sorry, kids. if you're gonna sport a beautiful handmade original Canon F-1, make the effort to find a couple matching silver breech ring original FD lenses to go with it (at the very least, a 50mm f/1.4 SSC). The smaller all-black "New FD" lenses with their fake bayonet action are easier to mount/dismount, but look awful on earlier bodies like F-1 and EF.

This applies with Nikon as well: the F, F2 and Nikkormats look funky as hell with post-1975 ribbed-focus K or AI lenses: they were designed to match the duotone, scalloped focus ring pre-AI lenses. I've gone out of my way to obtain a few pre-AI versions with the genuine Nikon AI modification for my F2AS and FT3, cause I'm fussy that way. Of course I've only done this for pre-AI lenses with the same optics as the later AIS: if the AIS is better (i.e., my 35mm f/1.4 or 28mm f/2.8), I use the AIS version (I said I'm fussy, not a total luddite). The fat chrome/black pre-AI 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S looks fantastic on all pre-1975 Nikon/Nikkormats and is pretty common / easy / affordable to obtain: there's millions of 'em out there. Find a cheap one with crummy glass just for display at home when not actively shooting your Nikon: you'll thank me every time you look at it.

What?
Is anybody seriously concerned about making a fashion statement with a ~40 year old Nikon or Canon ?
Don't be ridiculous!
Sigh, it's not jewelry.

BradS said:

What? Is anybody seriously concerned about making a fashion statement with a ~40 year old Nikon or Canon ?
Don't be ridiculous!
Sigh, it's not jewelry.

Click to expand...

I feel old now. But anyways, celebs and richies do it with Leicas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/fashion/leica-cameras-favored-by-celebrities.html

Sure is a beatuy queen with that chrome ring

BradS said:

What?
Is anybody seriously concerned about making a fashion statement with a ~40 year old Nikon or Canon ?
Don't be ridiculous!
Sigh, it's not jewelry.

Click to expand...

Note the smilies: I was mostly kidding.

To be clear, I don't get a kick out of using "vintage-correct" lenses on my cameras as a fashion statement: it never occurs to me anyone else is watching while I shoot or would remotely care. I do it because I enjoy the coordinated look and feel, but only if no optical compromise is involved: if a later version of the lens has improved glass, I buy that instead without thinking twice. And all bets are off with my Hasselblad system: the original vintage C lenses for my 500cm had an incredible build and appearance, but they stunk on ice to operate: I was very happy to ditch them for the much more modern (if ugly as sin) CF and CB lenses.

But old common Canon FD and Nikkor pre-AI standard 50mms are certainly cheap enough that I think its cool to own the 50mm f/1.4 version that was originally sold with the Canon F-1, Nikon F or F2. We're not talking Leicaphile obsessiveness or expense here- just having fun. And in Canon's case, not only is that breech lock 50mm f/1.4 finished and built as nicely as the original F-1: it has an excellent optical rep for use on mirrorless digital as well, so win-win.

"Canon's decision to orphan their lens mount w/ no forward compatibility surely made a lot of Canon people angry, w/ some going to Nikon. Nikon didn't abandon their mount, and there were plenty of 3rd party lenses to use on them as well."

Canon won the war, their electronic mount with micro motor driven lens coupled with the best 1st and 2nd generation AF and L glass lens Canon overtook Nikon as the go to pro level camera. By the time the F5 was on the market it was too little and too late. Right now I am hip deep in Minolta A mount, but if I had to do all over again I would go with Canon EOS, almost every full frame EF lens will work on a Canon film body, including OS lens.

jonmon6691 said:

Sure is a beatuy queen with that chrome ring
View attachment 287536

Click to expand...

Those old breech mount FD lenses are a thing of beauty of me. I have a few of them in my collection.

mcrokkorx said:

The fat chrome/black pre-AI 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S looks fantastic on all pre-1975 Nikon/Nikkormats and is pretty common / easy / affordable to obtain: there's millions of 'em out there. Find a cheap one with crummy glass just for display at home when not actively shooting your Nikon: you'll thank me every time you look at it.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm shallow, but now I want one

mcrokkorx said:

Photographers who weren't around in that era and old enough to be interested in cameras really have no conception of the emotional headlock Nikon's F and esp F2 had on the imaginations of 35mm SLR buyers: they were THE aspirational SLR cameras of the early to mid 1970s, period, no credible competitors whatsoever. Amateurs were so desperate to be associated with Nikon, even their idiotic strategy of naming their non-pro cameras "Nikkormat" (WTH?) saddled with severely cropped off-center viewfinders succeeded wildly. The only thing more common than protests on college campuses in the '70s were the student-wielded Nikkormats documenting them.

Click to expand...

This is a touch hyperbolic. I was around in those days and old enough to be interested in cameras. Had you given me $250 to spend on an SLR in 1974 I would have grabbed an OM-1 without hesitation. I thought the Nikkormat FTn was a dog, the klutziest of the midrange SLRs offered by the leading vendors at the time. Had the OM-1 not been available, I would have taken an FTb or an SR-T101 or even a Spotmatic F over the Nikkormat. No F2 halo effect whatsoever.

[Sure, n = 1, call me an outlier.] EDIT: Oh, scratch that outlier thing, plenty of like-minded folks right here, as well as among avid amateurs at the time. I'm sure that would be corroborated if we were to have the sales numbers for every model in every manufacturer's line for the 1971-75 period.

At any rate, as you say, in 1976 Canon blew up everything and carpeted the world with AE-1's. It turned out that for the market writ large, John Newcombe had far more influence than any pro halo-camera.

I maybe spoiled because I grew up playing with my father's Nikon F and F2s (he repaired cameras, but was also a collector) - but the amateur Canon models and Nikkormats felt so clunky. I mean, look at the Pentax spotmatic series, and then handle the contemporary Nikon and Canons competitors. Nikon knocked it out of the park with the FM/FE, though, and Canon decided to aim for the lower end with the (now overrated) AE1.

The original F1 was a jewel. Smoothest film advance, decent viewfinder, though I wish they used SPD metering in the F1n (1976) when they had the chance. The meter switch was also an oddity. The 300 5.6 and 2.8 fluorite lenses were legendary for their time. Throw in the 55 1.2 aspherical in there along them.

Regarding the chrome ring, some Vivitar lenses in Canon FD mount came first with chrome rings and later with black rings. The lenses with the black rings were breech lock types and, I think, look very nice on Canon F-1 cameras. As fast as I know, Vivitar did not sell any lenses of the New FD style.

One more comment about the Canonflex cameras - when I use my Canonflex RM (thumb film advance lever) I see that it is not suitable for fast work but it is capable of first class results. While the Canonflex line was not a great sales success, I think Canon learned important lessons from it. The aperture mechanism in the Canonflex lenses was too complex. The bottom trigger for advancing film resulted in too many design compromises. Selenium metering had become obsolete. Instant return mirrors and TTL metering were becoming the SLR norm. Some of the Canonflex deficiencies were addressed in the FL camera/lens line. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it was a long wait for a Canon SLR with fully interchangeable lenses to have the combination of TTL and full aperture metering. It's true that the Pentax Spotmatics were smaller and lighter but the wait for the Spotnatic F was also a long one.

Oren Grad said:

This is a touch hyperbolic. I was around in those days and old enough to be interested in cameras. Had you given me $250 to spend on an SLR in 1974 I would have grabbed an OM-1 without hesitation. I thought the Nikkormat FTn was a dog, the klutziest of the midrange SLRs offered by the leading vendors at the time. Had the OM-1 not been available, I would have taken an FTb or an SR-T101 or even a Spotmatic F over the Nikkormat. No F2 halo effect whatsoever.

Click to expand...

My remarks about the Nikon F2 halo effect were meant to be specifically referring to the OP question of why the Canon F-1 didn't become as popular as it should have: my point was Nikon had a lock on the market of amateurs who could afford a $450 SLR that Canon was unable to lure away in any significant numbers. The Canon sold well to pros but didn't reach critical mass with well-heeled amateurs. Of the 880,000 F2 cameras Nikon sold, at least half went to non-pros who perpetuated a mystique, and those F2s flood the used marketplace to this day. The Canon F-1 didn't have that volume of sales and never developed iconic status among amateurs: it remained a well-respected professional tool with little mass market recognition.

I agree with your points about the popularity or advantages of Olympus OM-1, Minolta SRT and Pentax Spotmatic over the Nikkormat: of course these were the bread and butter of camera stores, outselling the pro Canons and Nikons by an order of magnitude. The OM-1 was probably the most well-conceived, jewel like cameras of the '70s: I begged my father to buy me one for my 16th birthday and was shocked that he agreed to let me pay off the $240 cost bit by bit. Wonderful camera, totally lived up to its rep as the "Leica M3 of SLRs". But it didn't begin picking off Nikkormat sales in earnest until 1974-1975, by which time it was eating heavily into SRT and Spotmatic - KM - KX sales as well.

That period came a couple years after the introduction of the Canon F-1 and the peak of the Nikkormat, which is the era I was speaking of (1970-1973) when I said the F/F2 had massive name recognition and Nikkormat dominated college campuses. Canon faced immense headwinds introducing the all-new F-1 and FD system into that environment: the Nikon F was still top of the heap, the F2 was the new glamour magnet, and Nikon/EPOI savagely undercut other mfrs by offering steep discounts on Nikkormats to students (lowering the cost to below a Spotmatic or SRT). The Nikkormat may have been a clunky dog vs SRT or Spotmatic, but Nikon snared the college kids early then had them for a lifetime.

It took Olympus to break that logjam and shake up the industry (including students), but the OM-1 tornado didn't hit full force until '74. Between its failure to siphon off the wealthy amateur market from Nikon with the F-1, and shock at the success of Olympus OM, Canon regrouped and bet all its chips on the AE-1 stealth bomb for 1976. The AE-1 took the market by storm based on price and sexy automation, but the pro F-1 stubbornly remained a non-starter in the rich mans toy segment still owned by Nikon with the F2S. At least Canon had ensured Nikon would never again get a restful nights sleep in the volume mid-price segment: the once-lucrative Nikkormat was getting killed on one end by the tiny lightweight Olympus OM-1, and the other by the sexy electronic whiz-bang AE-1. The FM helped a little against the OM-1 but Nikon took way too long to introduce its automatic sister the FE (which Canon then blunted with its super computerized A-1 step-up from AE-1). Finally, we had a real streetfight between titans.

jonmon6691 said:

Sure is a beatuy queen with that chrome ring
View attachment 287536

Click to expand...

I forgot..........i have a speed-finder for my F-1 New. I just slipped it on.
I do not have a lot of experience with these, and Zero experience with speeders for Minolta, Nikon, Etc etc
But the Canon seems to be Very Nice. Not sure how often I WILL use it, but i am happy to have it.

mcrokkorx said:

My remarks about the Nikon F2 halo effect were meant to be specifically referring to the OP question of why the Canon F-1 didn't become as popular as it should have: my point was Nikon had a lock on the market of amateurs who could afford a $450 SLR that Canon was unable to lure away in any significant numbers. The Canon sold well to pros but didn't reach critical mass with well-heeled amateurs. Of the 880,000 F2 cameras Nikon sold, at least half went to non-pros who perpetuated a mystique, and those F2s flood the used marketplace to this day. The Canon F-1 didn't have that volume of sales and never developed iconic status among amateurs: it remained a well-respected professional tool with little mass market recognition.

I agree with your points about the popularity or advantages of Olympus OM-1, Minolta SRT and Pentax Spotmatic over the Nikkormat: of course these were the bread and butter of camera stores, outselling the pro Canons and Nikons by an order of magnitude. The OM-1 was probably the most well-conceived, jewel like cameras of the '70s: I begged my father to buy me one for my 16th birthday and was shocked that he agreed to let me pay off the $240 cost bit by bit. Wonderful camera, totally lived up to its rep as the "Leica M3 of SLRs". But it didn't begin picking off Nikkormat sales in earnest until 1974-1975, by which time it was eating heavily into SRT and Spotmatic - KM - KX sales as well.

That period came a couple years after the introduction of the Canon F-1 and the peak of the Nikkormat, which is the era I was speaking of (1970-1973) when I said the F/F2 had massive name recognition and Nikkormat dominated college campuses. Canon faced immense headwinds introducing the all-new F-1 and FD system into that environment: the Nikon F was still top of the heap, the F2 was the new glamour magnet, and Nikon/EPOI savagely undercut other mfrs by offering steep discounts on Nikkormats to students (lowering the cost to below a Spotmatic or SRT). The Nikkormat may have been a clunky dog vs SRT or Spotmatic, but Nikon snared the college kids early then had them for a lifetime.

It took Olympus to break that logjam and shake up the industry (including students), but the OM-1 tornado didn't hit full force until '74. Between its failure to siphon off the wealthy amateur market from Nikon with the F-1, and shock at the success of Olympus OM, Canon regrouped and bet all its chips on the AE-1 stealth bomb for 1976. The AE-1 took the market by storm based on price and sexy automation, but the pro F-1 stubbornly remained a non-starter in the rich mans toy segment still owned by Nikon with the F2S. At least Canon had ensured Nikon would never again get a restful nights sleep in the volume mid-price segment: the once-lucrative Nikkormat was getting killed on one end by the tiny lightweight Olympus OM-1, and the other by the sexy electronic whiz-bang AE-1. The FM helped a little against the OM-1 but Nikon took way too long to introduce its automatic sister the FE (which Canon then blunted with its super computerized A-1 step-up from AE-1). Finally, we had a real streetfight between titans.

Click to expand...

My first camera was an AE-1. Circa 1978.
Our photo teacher in high school was a big Canon guy.
I dropped photography soon after i had my kid...........by 1990, and only got back into it recently.
I wish i had known (much more) about Oly and Minolta.........and Pentax and Nikon back then.
I like 35mm SLR from those companies much more than Canon. Once i discovered Minolta and Olympus, I sold all of my Canon A-Series cameras with no regrets.
I am not saying the A-1 was a lousy camera. They are perfectly fine..............but Minolta and Oly were a better fit for me.