Canon vs. Nikon, again...

davesrose wrote in post #18995614
Nikon might have been considered#1 in professional sales, but I don’t think Canon was struggling with the FD mount. The best selling camera of all time was an FD mount after all.

In the days when photojournalism was an integral part of newspapers and magazines, so many staffs were provided with equipment. The Canon F-1 is arguably the first 'Canon professional' SLR, and it did not come out until 1971...leaving the Nikon F series to be the preponderant brand. In contrast, the 1959 Canonflex professional camera system failed and had to be down-featured for the consumer market...even then do we hear much about old Canonflex bodies previously owned by granpa?! Bacj in those days, there was NOT a 'consumer market' of any significance for SLRs...you had to understand too much the fundamentals of shutter speed and aperture to use cameras, and the amateur market had not yet emerged beyond some fancy P&S cameras with built in selenium cell meters.

You're ignoring what made the AE-1 the most popular camera of all time, and why the FD mount wasn't "struggling" after its introduction. The consumer market is much larger than the professional market. You also have to remember that point and shoot cameras weren't around in 1976. The AE-1 was heavily advertised for its CPU and the ability for lay people to not have to worry about exposure. My folks bought one as their camera, and it was handed to me for high school and college photography. I remember the first point and shoot my family got was one my grandfather bought...it wasn't as automatic as later models. They also weren't as durable as consumer SLRs like AE-1s. In my opinion, it was then harder to get excited about AF with film. I didn't feel the real need to get into EOS until digital.

davesrose wrote in post #18996053
You're ignoring what made the AE-1 the most popular camera of all time, and why the FD mount wasn't "struggling" after its introduction. The consumer market is much larger than the professional market. You also have to remember that point and shoot cameras weren't around in 1976. The AE-1 was heavily advertised for its CPU and the ability for lay people to not have to worry about exposure. My folks bought one as their camera, and it was handed to me for high school and college photography. I remember the first point and shoot my family got was one my grandfather bought...it wasn't as automatic as later models. They also weren't as durable as consumer SLRs like AE-1s. In my opinion, it was then harder to get excited about AF with film. I didn't feel the real need to get into EOS until digital.

I am well aware of the AE-1...it mimic'd my OM-1, and its advertising indeed make it a market success in the amateur world, so much that all the other brands launched their own models to compete with the OM-1/AE-1. The AE-1 was the first in what became a complete overhaul of Canon's line of SLRs. The AE-1 did not propel Canon into a position of continuing significance that changed how the professional users and all the photojournalists and publications changed their view of what equipment to have in the pool of gear...that took the EOS to get Nikon back on its heels.

For nearly 30 years, Nikon's F-series SLRs were the most widely used small-format cameras among professional photographers, as well as by the U.S. space program. And, to a great degree the amateurs wanted the 'pro brand' if they could afford it. The price of the F-series was always at the high end, so the amateur world bought the affordable stuff...Nikkormat was one example. Until the AE-1 rocked the photographic world by offering so much in an affordable package, and used advertising with populist figures to push the name. The much faster lens performance permitted by Canon's electronic focusing and aperture control prompted many professional photographers (especially in sports and news) to switch to the Canon system through the 1990s.

Putting too much import into how the fickle amateur users react as a group is fraught with risk, when they grow fickle again...the AE-1 was important to Canon, but not in how the brand was viewed in the world overall. The camera manufacturers lured the amateurs with their high end products 'that the pros use'. Yes, the world is far more fickle than it was 50 years ago...the world was solidly behind Nikon at a time when there were over a dozen brands of SLRs.I am not a Nikon fan who defected to Canon. I see the photographic history through uncolored glassess...I owned some of the cameras made by companies that no longer exist...Topcon, Bronica!

I wasn't accusing you of being a Nikon fanboy, and I hope you're not accusing me of being a Canon one. I was addressing your premise that Canon had struggling sales with the FD mount. This seems like a similar premise you've maintained that Canon didn't have 5D3 sales because of the 6D sensor (ignoring all the consumers who picked the 5D3 for its features). We're not talking about what was the most popular with professional markets: we're talking about bulk sales. You can't discount the consumer market. Should we say Hasselblad had the best profitability because NASA used it in the Apollo missions? Your post was saying that Canon was struggling when EOS came out (so specifically the 1980s)...but there's not evidence of that: especially since the AE-1 is indisputably the best selling camera (it was in an age that there weren't "point here" options for consumers). It seems like it was at a good time for Canon as well: as the AE-1 being so popular would also be a common SLR in college photo classes. Thats a good point that EF lenses offered better performance for sports photographers (though if I was using AF then, from what I'm used to now, I'd go crazy with the lack of AF points and modern tracking). But I seem to remember through the advertising that Canon was the official camera of the 1980s olympics (first with the F-1) and they used celebrities to advertise the AE series....hardly struggling before EOS came out.

Dave, no accusations of fan boys by you or I. I am maintaining that -- back in the 1970-1990s, the stature that a name carried in its pro line was a very strong influence to what the amateur market wanted to do. In my mind, the AE-1 did not cater to the photography hobbyist as much as it catered to the 'photoographic-snapshooter-upgrade-to 'better-camera' market. It was a known name brand (albeit the one struggling for more stature in the pro community) and it was at a price point and size that lured a lot of users to 'own an SLR'. The OM-10 lured a lot more customers than the OM-1, but the Olympus name recognition was because of the OM-1 and the fact that it was 'used by pros'. It was only AFTER snapshooters witnessed so many pros on televised events with 'Canon and white lenses' that the brand attained the stature of Nikon (or the stature of Hasselblad). Honda attained stature only once it won Formula 1 races...before then lots of folks purchased Hondas, but knowing drivers would look down their noses at the logo.
One also has to consider earnings...selling lots of AE-1s with 50mm f/1.8 lenses and an occasional 135mm lens might not generate as much profit as selling smaller numbers of Fn bodies and also many members of high-priced pro/specialty lenses. You can Nikon fan clubs, you did not have the same number of AE-1 fan clubs!

There is also die hard DeLorean fan clubs...does that mean DeLorean was flurishing?

I haven't disputed that Nikon was the recognized professional brand in the 70s, but one shouldn't overlook the whole market in the 80s. There may not be huge fan clubs for the AE-1, but it stayed a popular film SLR for photo classes. A new kit AE-1 was still more expensive than what point and shots would come to be, and there would have to be much higher margins in the pro line to compare to the 1+ million AE-1 cameras sold. Unfortunately consumers are also influenced by branding (I'm an audiophile, so will bash Bose speakers and Beats headphones...but many will think those products are good "luxury" products). In the 80s, I don't think it was just white lenses showing up towards the end of the decade (although there were white FD L lenses)....but also the magazine ads of how easy it is to take photos of a tennis match with your AE-1, or that many people on TV during the Olympics were wearing Canon gear.

Of course that was then, and it's fascinating how quickly the camera market is changing now. I recently saw demos of how advanced the iPhone 11's image processor is (in that it can have great DNR for low light and and can take astrophotography photos). Less reason for your consumer to want to buy a dedicated camera for versatility. So with the decline of overall camera sales...I would say that now is a focus on how well a brand caters to the professional market.

edit: also Honda. I wasn't born yet, but I thought they saw a lot of sales in the US during the oil embargo (and people wanted fuel efficient cars out of necessity). Looking up, apparently their sales doubled from 1974 to 1975: factors that are bigger than what car won races. I'm not a gear head, though, but do think the Ford GT40 still looks so impressive. I'm part Jewish, and it took quite awhile for my family to consider buying Ford let alone disown you if you bought Ford.

davesrose wrote in post #18996191
I'm an audiophile, so will bash Bose speakers and Beats headphones...but many will think those products are good "luxury" product

On that point we are in complete agreement!

davesrose wrote in post #18996053
You're ignoring what made the AE-1 the most popular camera of all time, and why the FD mount wasn't "struggling" after its introduction. The consumer market is much larger than the professional market. You also have to remember that point and shoot cameras weren't around in 1976. The AE-1 was heavily advertised for its CPU and the ability for lay people to not have to worry about exposure. My folks bought one as their camera, and it was handed to me for high school and college photography. I remember the first point and shoot my family got was one my grandfather bought...it wasn't as automatic as later models. They also weren't as durable as consumer SLRs like AE-1s. In my opinion, it was then harder to get excited about AF with film. I didn't feel the real need to get into EOS until digital.

Eh yes they were.
https://camerapedia.fa​ndom.com/wiki/Olympus_​Trip_35

soeren wrote in post #18996299
Eh yes they were.
https://camerapedia.fa​ndom.com/wiki/Olympus_​Trip_35

I don't see how this camera would be considered point and shoot as we know it: no automatic film advance, an "auto expsosure" feature that's limited to auto aperture and selecting either 1/40 or 1/200, a lens that needs focus.

davesrose wrote in post #18996303
I don't see how this camera would be considered point and shoot as we know it: no automatic film advance, an "auto expsosure" feature that's limited to auto aperture and selecting either 1/40 or 1/200, a lens that needs focus.

That was the P&S of the Day. Zone Focus was a thing back then
You also had the earlier boxcameras, like the Agfa Clack and the instamatic cameras.

soeren wrote in post #18996309
That was the P&S of the Day. Zone Focus was a thing back then
You also had the earlier boxcameras, like the Agfa Clack and the instamatic cameras.

Well with that logic, the Kodak Brownie was the only point and shoot one needed. From what I remember of my personal history...what made our current understanding of the point and shoot was "fully automatic". A viewfinder that didn't show anything. An auto advance mechanism with film that didn't need you to figure out how to load. No exposure controls, and no focus mechanism. My grandfather's term for it was a "press here dummy" camera (although before he got a P&S, he was into photography and had medium format and SLR).

davesrose wrote in post #18996167
(AE-1)it was in an age that there weren't "point here" options for consumers). It seems like it was at a good time for Canon as well: as the AE-1 being so popular would also be a common SLR in college photo classes. Thats a good point that EF lenses offered better performance for sports photographers (though if I was using AF then, from what I'm used to now, I'd go crazy with the lack of AF points and modern tracking). But I seem to remember through the advertising that Canon was the official camera of the 1980s olympics (first with the F-1) and they used celebrities to advertise the AE series....hardly struggling before EOS came out.

Watch out, your youth is showing!

1. In 1963 there were point and shoot 135 format rangefinder cameras, that could control both shutter speed and aperture control automatically under control of a selenium meter.
   The Minolta Himatic 7, our neighbors across the street had one. The HiMatic line dates back to 1962.
   
2. We had a Fujica rangefinder had a selenium meter, and it could set the Aperture when the control was on 'A', it needed you to select a shutter speed, however. It was one year earlier than the Himatic 7, and I used it to shoot family vacation photos on Catalina Is when I was 12 (now 69).
   
3. Contaflex Super BC of 1963 had shutter-priority automatic aperture, and improved upon the Contflex B in upgrading its selenium meter to CdS
   
4. In 1964 the Beseler Topcon Auto 100 was a shutter priority automation SLR, with TTL metering similar to its big brother Topcon Super D (aka Topcon RE Super) using CdS meter.
   
5. The Konica Auto-Reflex of 1965 was the first focal-plane-shutter auto exposure 35mm SLR.
   
6. None of the above had autofocus because it had not yet been invented, yet all could be put into 'shoot almost mindlessly' mode of use (the Himatic 7 could be used mindlessly)...the Polaroid SX-70 was the first AF camera, in 1978, and it had an autoexposure system, lot of point-and-shoot functionality enjoyed by tons of snapshooting non-photography users.
   

Wilt wrote in post #18996321
Watch out, your youth is showing!

1. In 1963 there were point and shoot 135 format rangefinder cameras, that could control both shutter speed and aperture control automatically under control of a selenium meter.
   The Minolta Himatic 7, our neighbors across the street had one. The HiMatic line dates back to 1962.
   
2. We had a Fujica rangefinder had a selenium meter, and it could set the Aperture when the control was on 'A', it needed you to select a shutter speed, however. It was one year earlier than the Himatic 7, and I used it to shoot family vacation photos on Catalina Is when I was 12 (now 69).
   
3. Contaflex Super BC of 1963 had shutter-priority automatic aperture, and improved upon the Contflex B in upgrading its selenium meter to CdS
   
4. In 1964 the Beseler Topcon Auto 100 was a shutter priority automation SLR, with TTL metering similar to its big brother Topcon Super D (aka Topcon RE Super) using CdS meter.
   
5. The Konica Auto-Reflex of 1965 was the first focal-plane-shutter auto exposure 35mm SLR.
   
6. None of the above had autofocus because it had not yet been invented, yet all could be put into 'shoot almost mindlessly' mode of use (the Himatic 7 could be used mindlessly)...the Polaroid SX-70 was the first AF camera, in 1978, and it had an autoexposure system, lot of point-and-shoot functionality enjoyed by tons of snapshooting non-photography users.
   

All preceded the AE-1.

haha...I'm certainly not going to go down the rabbit hole of who was first with auto exposure. I'm sure there were many methods for setting an automatic exposure before a digital CPU. I still don't see how an auto exposure feature is equivalent to a "press here" camera. I'm sure all those cameras still had the caveat of selecting other settings and focusing. I'm still maintaining they're not what has come to be known as point and shoot...what I outlined previously about auto film advance, no exposure control, no manual focusing.

davesrose wrote in post #18996324
haha...I'm certainly not going to go down the rabbit hole of who was first with auto exposure. I'm sure there were many methods for setting an automatic exposure before a digital CPU. I still don't see how an auto exposure feature is equivalent to a "press here" camera. I'm sure all those cameras still had the caveat of selecting other settings and focusing. I'm still maintaining they're not what has come to be known as point and shoot...what I outlined previously about auto film advance, no exposure control, no manual focusing.

As I said, "point and shoot 135 format rangefinder cameras, that could control both shutter speed and aperture control automatically under control of a selenium meter.
The Minolta Himatic 7, our neighbors across the street had one." It lacked Autofocus, but was otherwise Point and Shoot!!! For that matter, the Kodak Brownie was also 'point and shoot'...it simply lacked exposure control or the need for focus. Yes, they clearly do not fit TODAY'S updated definition of 'point and shoot'.

Following a similar line of reasoning...Perhaps, 'there were no real automobiles (auto mobile)' until a Tesla with self-driving was launched, and Model T or Ford GT or Ferraris are not 'real' automobiles?!

Wilt wrote in post #18996326
As I said, "point and shoot 135 format rangefinder cameras, that could control both shutter speed and aperture control automatically under control of a selenium meter.
The Minolta Himatic 7, our neighbors across the street had one." It lacked Autofocus, but was otherwise Point and Shoot!!! For that matter, the Kodak Brownie was also 'point and shoot'...it simply lacked exposure control or the need for focus. Yes, they clearly do not fit TODAY'S updated definition of 'point and shoot'.

Yeah, refer back a couple posts and I reasoned that if we're that loose, the Kodak Brownie would be a point and shoot. Sorry...looking up Minolta Himatic and it's like the rest of your list...auto exposure. Was a range finder easier to focus than a prism SLR? I don't know...but they both required manual focus. As a camera geek it is cool to see all these models that did have auto exposure.....but that doesn't define point and shoot. Especially since the start of this discussion was the 80s....which was the introduction of the point and shoot...we know there were features that had to be new. Film advance in particular seems to have been a premium. I say again P&S is auto film advance, full auto exposure, no manual focus.