Most Influential Cameras of All Time

fdigital said:
I would have put these ones in there:

Canon ae1 - sold heaps of them, first program SLR
Sigma dp1/Olympus e-p1 - the beginning of the big sensor in compact digital camera revolution.
Canon 5d - the first affordable full frame 35mm DSLR, one of the most used professional DSLRs in the world.
Click to expand...


I agree. EXCEPT:

Canon ae1 - sold heaps of them, first program SLR
Panasonic G1 - the beginning of the mirrorless, interchangeable lens, multi-mount digital camera systems
Canon 5d - the first affordable full frame 35mm DSLR, one of the most used professional DSLRs in the world.



/
 
The K1000 may not have been as absolutely great like the OM-1 or Nikon F but it was the entry level camera of its day. Some starving student somewhere probably took up photography because the K1000 was available.
 
Yuhi said:
The first digital full frame should make it as well (was it a Nikon D3?)
Click to expand...

As per wikipedia:

Contax N Digital (2002)
Canon EOS-1Ds (2002)
Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n (2004)
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (2004)
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II (2004)
Canon EOS 5D (2005)
Nikon D3 (2007)

The 5d and 1ds were the first really popular ones, and really the first ones without some sort of major usability problem.
 
Rayt said:
The K1000 may not have been as absolutely great like the OM-1 or Nikon F but it was the entry level camera of its day. Some starving student somewhere probably took up photography because the K1000 was available.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, I bought one for my son when he was in High School. He still uses it, and I like to use it when I visit. If you cut away all this firsts stuff; the K1000 may have been the most influential camera. At least in the last 50 years, some kind of Brownie probably for the 50 years before that.
 
WTF... hello?

Kodak_Disc_3600.jpg


;)
 
Influential to whom?

I'd like to understand whether the status of, say the Minolta, is because they happened to be first to market or if they had technology no one else did and therefore prompted them to develop it. If they hadn't produced this camera when they did would Canon or Nikon or Pentax have been the first to market? Were they being innovative in their design or only fortunate in their product launch timing?

On that basis the Nikon F must have a place as a game-changer in showing that an SLR worked as a replacement for the Rangefinders and TLR press cameras, which the earlier SLRs despite technological innovation did not. The F wasn't so much about being an SLR as a true professional-quality system camera. This would also lead to the inclusion of the Hasselblad system.

You could also argue that the Leica M3 was also influential as it prompted other manufacturers to develop alternative technologies as they couldn't replicate the Leica, even though it was something of a by-water in camera design.
 
Well, I've know Jason for many years, and I've no doubt that he could (a) defend this at length and (b) give you a different list if you asked him the same question in a month's time.

The absence of the Autoreflex T (first auto-exposure SLR with focal plane shutter and interchangeable lenses) is obviously a major flaw; but then, when we were amiably arguing over this in the 80s, he said, "There's always some obscure Lithuanian tinsmith to whom you can point as the originator". We were talking about the (Hungarian) Gamma Duflex at the time, and the earlier patents for the Wrayflex.

Other obvious omissions are the Sanderson and the Rollei 35. He has his views; I have mine; and I doubt that either of us would claim that his list is indisputably superior.

Cheers,

R.
 
What about the first compact SLR - the brilliant Olympus OM1, but hang on, isn't this a rangefinder forum? Most influential rangefinder cameras of all time, could be an all Leica list.
 
(From Dictionary.com) Influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.

Here's what I'd keep:
1. Kodak Brownie 1900 (Duh)
2. Leica I, Model A, 1925 (Duh)
5. Nikon F 1959 (Name one truly pro 35mm camera introduced later that was not a sturdy SLR... the M4 is basically a fast-loading M3 with a film rewind crank and a modified viewfinder)
8. Sony Mavica 1981 (Too clunky, not really a digital camera... but it will do)
7. Minolta Maxxum 7000 1985 (They were the first with an actual "system")
12. Canon EOS Digital Rebel 2003 (Cheap... finally got most little rural newspapers out of the dark ages and spawned thousands of "professional" wedding photographers)
13. Apple iPhone 2008 (there should be a cell phone someplace, even though camera phones had been around for years, and we couldn't upset the MacWhores, could we?)

Here's what I'd take off:
3. Kine Exakta I 1936 (Unreliable... the SLR was a clunky, unreliable, over-priced contraption until the Nikon F. Notice how the Minolta SR-7 and Canonflex, introduced at the same time, are practically unheard of?)
4. Kodak Super Six-20 1938 (No...)
6. Asahi Pentax K1000 1977 (Just because something was popular doesn't mean it was influential on future design...)
9. Kodak DCS 100 1991 (Too clunky and expensive)
10. Kodak DC 210 1998 (Too clunky and expensive)
11. Nikon D100 2002 (Not all that popular... the Canon D30, D60 and 10D were already selling plenty by this point)
14. Sony SLT Alpha-55 2010 (No... The D90 is far more influential)

Here's what I'd add:
Canon A-1 1978 (Why? How many plastic cameras packed full of full auto features followed?)

Nikon D1 1999 (Why? Name a more influential digital SLR... It set the idea of a pro camera set up like the top-tier film SLR, taking up no more space, and offering speed and acceptable quality)

Nikon D90 (Why? Video. Try to find a DSLR made since then which doesn't have video)

There's 10... who picks 14 for a list? What is it, they have the math skills of Ken Rockwell?
 
RayPA said:
Aside from the 'auto-loading' statement, could not the same be said for Polaroid cameras? Polaroid, while popular, really wasn't influential—in the sense that it spawned a bunch of copycat cameras or a branch of instant cameras. It was pretty much a proprietary formula that only Polaroid used. Kodak was certainly influenced by it—enough so to steal it and later be successfully sued. :p

Polaroid certainly had an IMPACT on photography—changing the way pros worked, etc. But influential?? Maybe if you can make a link between Polaroid and digital.... :D



/
Click to expand...

I would say it was influentail, it along with the Kodak instamatic put affordable photography in the hands of the masses. Just as the P&S cameras are today. I wouldn't say a high end camera that few could afford is influentail, maybe for journalist but not for a kid like me.
 
Maybe that last entry was the sole purpose of the list! Maybe Adorama scored a boatload of A55 bodies and wants to get rid of them. What better way than to include it on this list. :)
 
Bobbo said:
(From Dictionary.com) Influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.
Click to expand...

It doesn't help much does it? :D Based on the definition, 'popularity' can be a factor of 'influential'.


/
 
mrrobleyleica said:
What about the first compact SLR - the brilliant Olympus OM1, but hang on, isn't this a rangefinder forum? Most influential rangefinder cameras of all time, could be an all Leica list.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah...

A later, clunkier, badly-designed but ever-so-slightly smaller version of the Pentax SV, the nearest SLR ever to a screw-mount Leica. The SV was small, smooth, and had its controls (except the self-timer) in the right place.

(Dons fireproof suit...)

Cheers,

R.
 
cosmonaut said:
I would say it was influentail, it along with the Kodak instamatic put affordable photography in the hands of the masses. Just as the P&S cameras are today. I wouldn't say a high end camera that few could afford is influentail, maybe for journalist but not for a kid like me.
Click to expand...

Polaroids AFFORDABLE for a mass market? You are presumably too young to know what they cost for the first thirty or forty years.

Sure, they were easily affordable for the financially overprivileged. Otherwise they were great fun as long as you didn't take too many pictures. Or if you were a professional.

Come on...

Cheers,

R.
 
Polaroid affordable? Yes, when you consider cost of developing and printing of negative film. There was no wally world in those days. A roll of 20 would run almost $10. Polaroid film (8 exp) about the same. 2X the price, but convenient.

First auto focus camera Minolta Himatic AF. Not an SLR but Canon paid them a heap of money for infringing patents. Memory fails but I believe Nikon did too.
 
Last edited:
Landshark said:
Polaroid affordable? Yes, when you consider cost of developing and printing of negative film. There was no wally world in those days. A roll of 20 would run almost $10. Polaroid film (8 exp) about the same. 2X the price, but convenient.

First auto focus camera Minolta Himatic AF. Not an SLR but Canon paid them a heap of money for infringing patents. Memory fails but I believe Nikon did too.
Click to expand...

Or nearly 2.5x the price. To quote myself a few posts back, "they were great fun as long as you didn't take too many pictures".

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Oh, yeah...

A later, clunkier, badly-designed but ever-so-slightly smaller version of the Pentax SV, the nearest SLR ever to a screw-mount Leica. The SV was small, smooth, and had its controls (except the self-timer) in the right place.

(Dons fireproof suit...)

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a Pentax SV is, must be old. Most Pentax's were small, the only one I have ever had (still have) is the exception - 6x7. I had an OM1 and OM2 which I liked. I couldn't afford a Nikon then and it was a very handy part-ex to my first real camera an M3 plus Summarit f1.5. I liked the shutter behind the lens on th OM, it sort of made sense if you weren't used to it where it sort of should be. Shame the lenses were so slow, small but slow. But the UK had good summers in the 80's so it was okay.
 
Bobbo said:
Here's what I'd take off:
3. Kine Exakta I 1936 (Unreliable... the SLR was a clunky, unreliable, over-priced contraption until the Nikon F. Notice how the Minolta SR-7 and Canonflex, introduced at the same time, are practically unheard of?)
Click to expand...

I disagree. What is the Nikon F except for a blander, Japanese version of the Exakta VX? :D Nikon apparently loved Exakta enough to copy their method of prism interchangeability, even though Miranda's slide in prisms were obviously better. Also for as much credit as Nikon is given for the F's industrial design, it obviously references Contax and Exakta.

Besides if we're talking influence here, the Exakta VX's interchangeable screens and viewfinders obviously influenced others, Topcon, Nikon, Miranda, etc. Nikon influenced photographers, Exakta influenced the industry.

I have several pre-Nikon F SLRs... alll of which are less clunky than the Nikon - which is basically the epitome of clunkiness (ignoring the Argus C3 of course).

Speaking of SLRs, the omission of the Topcon is GLARING. But I admit I didn't even think of it at first. Afterall the Topcon introduced TTL open aperture metering and had the whole industry scrambling for YEARS to catch up. Pretty much every camera today has it.

How can that be overlooked? As well as Topcons were first class machines in virtually every other respect too, and still have a cult like following today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom