Show us your SLR ..... WHAT?

[Sonnar2]

Not really. The OM-2 came out in 1975.

Roland.

So what, the Pentax ES came out 1971. You missed my point, Roland. I wasn't talking about one year earlier or later. If the OM-2 came out prior to the AE-1, there have to be reasons why it wasn't a big sales success when compared to it, whereas Canon wouldn't have become No.1 in the world without the AE-1.

Around 1975 years the computerized AE-SLRs were new to the public. Wouldn't they fall apart after two years of use? Probably one reason the public trusted in the functioning of Nikon, Canon and Nikon was of the generation of the brick-stones alike EL, EF, ES.

 

[shadowfox]

So what, the Pentax ES came out 1971. You missed my point, Roland. I wasn't talking about one year earlier or later. If the OM-2 came out prior to the AE-1, there have to be reasons why it wasn't a big sales success when compared to it, whereas Canon wouldn't have become No.1 in the world without the AE-1.

Canon wouldn't have been No.1 (btw, no.1 sales-wise, not quality) if they don't have a very effective sales and marketing department. 😉

 

[photorat]

So many fantastic photos!

So many fantastic photos!

I guess you guys used your proper camera to take these?

 

[ferider]

So what, the Pentax ES came out 1971. You missed my point, Roland. I wasn't talking about one year earlier or later. If the OM-2 came out prior to the AE-1, there have to be reasons why it wasn't a big sales success when compared to it, whereas Canon wouldn't have become No.1 in the world without the AE-1.

Around 1975 years the computerized AE-SLRs were new to the public. Wouldn't they fall apart after two years of use? Probably one reason the public trusted in the functioning of Nikon, Canon and Nikon was of the generation of the brick-stones alike EL, EF, ES.

I bought my first OM-2 in 1978. As a 13 year old, after 4 weeks of
summer work to finance it. My father recommended it due to size
and quality of lenses. It held a record back then, and was sold
as such, the smallest Auto SLR ...

There was already back then a (small) cult following of Olympus equipment
partially due to the Pen line ....

Why a vendor becomes sales #1 is largely independent of the
technology used/invented. Camera cults existed back then
just like now. The Nikon/Canon debate existed back then, too, already.
Same emotions as nowadays, just no internet.

Roland.

 

[rxmd]

Canon wouldn't have been No.1 (btw, no.1 sales-wise, not quality)

I'm not sure whether the last distinction makes a lot of sense. There aren't many Canon SLRs which have a reputation for being low-quality. Apart from entry models that is, but that wasn't really that different in the 1970s.

My own experience is limited to A-1s, AE-1s and T-90s as well as an EOS-10. As far as I can see, I've never been disappointed qualitywise. Together with a friend and my brother, we've literally dragged these across deserts and steppes. I have an AE-1P which I dropped down mountainsides and with which I fell into wells in Central Asia, and it's never failed me. The camera is at least as durable as I am, and I can't really be asking for more 😉

Philipp

 

[Sonnar2]

Great stuff. I wasn't sure Olympus, like Zeiss and Nikon, had build a 2.8/180. Is there a website where the lens designs for the OM-1/-2 SLRs were discussed?

So you guy bought an Olympus as a 13 year old, and I bought a Pentax. No wonder you stil like it. Me too. I like it so much I gathered about 10 Pentax SLR bodies and some more lenses.. 😀

 

[ferider]

Great stuff. I wasn't sure Olympus, like Zeiss and Nikon, had build a 2.8/180. Is there a website where the lens designs for the OM-1/-2 SLRs were discussed?

Here is a good reference site, including diagrams, etc, Frank:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/index.htm

So you guy bought an Olympus as a 13 year old, and I bought a Pentax. No wonder you stil like it. Me too. I like it so much I gathered about 10 Pentax SLR bodies and some more lenses.. 😀

🙂 🙂 Best,

Roland.

 

[Sonnar2]

You really gas-ed me up, Roland, together with another guy lately talking about the 85/2 in a Rollei forum. I said there that the Sonnar 85/2.8 was the smallest short telephoto ever build for SLR and the Zuiko 85/2 is just a few mm bigger, although beeing faster (and closer to the 1920's Ernostar design than Zeiss as well). Together with my weak point for fast 85mm's, and that I really missed the Oly in my 85mm's comparison at http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_Takumar_85mm.html , this really beats me!!

What would you say, is a OM-4 a good point to start with Olympus? At the very point my youngest SLR of my collection is the Pentax LX but the OM-4 would be borderline "mechanical enough" for me. And as I told, I prefer the ASA-dial on the left. Maybe I'll sell a few Rollei bodies... 😉

 

[PHOTOEIL]

I did not intend to post on this threat, but as there is nobody showing the PENTAX good old workhorse, i will do it.
Here you have it, the LX plus a 35mm 1:2, just a picture made in a hurry...

 

[Gordon Coale]

Yes, we need more Pentaxes. I expect to add a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4 to this pile in another couple of weeks. The cameras are a black Spotmatic SP and a chrome Spotmatic F. The lenses, from the left: Vivitar 20/3.8, Super Takumar 28/3.5 on the SP, Super Takumar 35/3.5, and a Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takumar 50/4. In front of the 35 and 50 is an Industar 50/35, Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 85/1.8 on the Spotmatic F, and a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135/3.5. In front of the 135 is a Vivitar 2x telextender and on the right are three Fujica macro extension tubes.

Coming from Leica screw mount cameras, the Pentax screw mounts are a natural and they are inexpensive. Not cheap, inexpensive. Beautiful cameras and wonderful lenses.

 

[PHOTOEIL]

Yes, we need more Pentaxes. I expect to add a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4 to this pile in another couple of weeks...

I always wanted an good Spotmatic with a good 50 mm but as far I haven't come across a fine example, a pity...

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I always wanted an good Spotmatic with a good 50 mm but as far I haven't come across a fine example, a pity...

The Spotmatics and Takumars are, in my opinion, quite overpriced due to collector interest. Of course they are good and some of the Takumars are even quite good by modern standards, but so are 1960s Nikkors and they won't usually command nearly as high price as Takumars. Spotmatics are beautiful cameras, but fully working and for practical purposes nearly as reliable Mamiyas, Fujicas, Prakticas, Cosinas and Chinons can be bought at fraction of the price.

When it comes to M42 screw mount lenses, you can often get two or three Pentacon, Carl Zeiss Jena, Mamiya-Sekor or Fujinon EBC M42 lenses or even larger number of Russian, Cosinon, Chinon or Japanese discount brand lenses for the price of one Takumar. And they really are not THAT much better.

 

[Gordon Coale]

Phillipe -- There are lots of Spotmatics on eBay every day. You can get a good SP or SPII body for US$30. The Spotmatic F goes for a bit more although I paid US$43 for my Spotmatic F with a beautiful 55/1.8. The 55 ended up on a Spotmatic 1000 I'm sending off to my oldest daughter. If there is something wrong, they can be fixed very reasonably. The Spotmatics are so reasonable I'm getting one for each of my adult kids. I had an extra SPII (replaced by the Spotmatic F.) that went to my youngest daughter and my son has an early rough early Spotmatic that I gave him that I will be replacing in a couple of weeks. That is, of course, after I gave my Red FED 2 to my middle daughter and a Zorki 4 to my son. My oldest daughter bought her own FED 2.

 

[shadowfox]

I'm not sure whether the last distinction makes a lot of sense. There aren't many Canon SLRs which have a reputation for being low-quality. Apart from entry models that is, but that wasn't really that different in the 1970s.

My own experience is limited to A-1s, AE-1s and T-90s as well as an EOS-10. As far as I can see, I've never been disappointed qualitywise. Together with a friend and my brother, we've literally dragged these across deserts and steppes. I have an AE-1P which I dropped down mountainsides and with which I fell into wells in Central Asia, and it's never failed me. The camera is at least as durable as I am, and I can't really be asking for more 😉

Philipp

But Phillip, we were not talking about "never dissapoint me" or even "high quality", there are just as many Nikons, Olympus, Pentax, and Minoltas that can compete quality-wise with all the Canons you mentioned. We were talking about No.1, meaning it's the best.

Canon is the best in the views of the common public. And it is reflected by the sales, period.

And Canon gets to be no.1 in sales because of its efficient and excellent sales and marketing department, not because it has the superior technology that can make the other camera makers look bad.

So like I said, Canon is No.1 in sales. It is not no.1 in quality. Make more sense now? 😀

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

My own experience is limited to A-1s, AE-1s and T-90s as well as an EOS-10. As far as I can see, I've never been disappointed qualitywise. Together with a friend and my brother, we've literally dragged these across deserts and steppes. I have an AE-1P which I dropped down mountainsides and with which I fell into wells in Central Asia, and it's never failed me. The camera is at least as durable as I am, and I can't really be asking for more 😉

Philipp

I believe the success of the AE-1 was a combination of good marketing and relatively low price. The AE-1 was the camera that made Canon the number one brand among amateur photographers especially in North America and Western Europe. Since then Canon has always more or less dominated the amateur SLR market.

The AE-1 was also cheaper to manufacture than its rivals, which increased Canon's profits compared to Nikon and many of the smaller companies that still made the casings of their camera bodies entirely of aluminum. Of course the great socialist 🙄 VEB Pentacon was again a notch ahead of the capitalist companies, since the Praktica L series cameras had chromium colored plastics in their casings since year 1970 😀

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

And Canon gets to be no.1 in sales because of its efficient and excellent sales and marketing department, not because it has the superior technology that can make the other camera makers look bad.

So like I said, Canon is No.1 in sales. It is not no.1 in quality. Make more sense now? 😀

Exactly. When Minolta made an autofocus SLR camera, only amateurs were interested and even then most of them bought a Canon T series camera instead. When Canon made an autofocus SLR a couple of years later, it didn't take long for practically everyone to get one. It seems than Nikon is learning though, albeit slowly. The Nikon D40 and D40x are selling like hotcakes with almost the same manufacturing and marketing principles as Canon used with the AE-1 30 years ago!

Of course from business perspective it is almost too late for Nikon now, since the real money is in compact cameras, where only Sony can really challenge the dominance of Canon.

 

[zuikologist]

The Spotmatics and Takumars are, in my opinion, quite overpriced due to collector interest. Of course they are good and some of the Takumars are even quite good by modern standards, but so are 1960s Nikkors and they won't usually command nearly as high price as Takumars. Spotmatics are beautiful cameras, but fully working and for practical purposes nearly as reliable Mamiyas, Fujicas, Prakticas, Cosinas and Chinons can be bought at fraction of the price.

When it comes to M42 screw mount lenses, you can often get two or three Pentacon, Carl Zeiss Jena, Mamiya-Sekor or Fujinon EBC M42 lenses or even larger number of Russian, Cosinon, Chinon or Japanese discount brand lenses for the price of one Takumar. And they really are not THAT much better.

The great advantage of the later Takumar lenses is in the SMC lens coatings. Also, build quality is arguably better than almost all other M42 lenses, and up there with the Nikkors. Optically, many of these lenses, including the discount brands, are interesting in the digital era because they outperform consumer zooms and because they have an optical signature which may be of interest to some users.

 

[oftheherd]

THAT[/B] much better.

I don't know why I disagree, but somehow, I just can't call Fujicas "nearly as reliable."

Also if you know where I can get Fujinon M42 lenses at two or three to one against Takumars, please tell me where! Fujica lenses never got the consideration they deserved when until much later, after production stopped. Since, I assure you they have held their price. And considering they weren't made in the quantity the Takumars were, it is a wonder they aren't even more expensive.

 

[oftheherd]

I believe the success of the AE-1 was a combination of good marketing and relatively low price. The AE-1 was the camera that made Canon the number one brand among amateur photographers especially in North America and Western Europe. Since then Canon has always more or less dominated the amateur SLR market.

The AE-1 was also cheaper to manufacture than its rivals, which increased Canon's profits compared to Nikon and many of the smaller companies that still made the casings of their camera bodies entirely of aluminum. Of course the great socialist 🙄 VEB Pentacon was again a notch ahead of the capitalist companies, since the Praktica L series cameras had chromium colored plastics in their casings since year 1970 😀

Good marketing and relatively low price may well have helped. But they were just a rugged camera that was easy for the amature public to use, and they had a Canon name.

My command in the US Army decided to buy them and different lenses and flashes for use in all our offices world wide. I was flabergasted. I tried to tell them there were better choices. But you know what? Our people took to those cameras like ducks to water. They weren't over-awed to the point of non-use, and they couldn't tear them up. I had to give them their due. We got a lot of photos we would never have gotten otherwise. Don't put down those cameras too quickly. They produced.

 

[ferider]

You really gas-ed me up, Roland, together with another guy lately talking about the 85/2 in a Rollei forum. I said there that the Sonnar 85/2.8 was the smallest short telephoto ever build for SLR and the Zuiko 85/2 is just a few mm bigger, although beeing faster (and closer to the 1920's Ernostar design than Zeiss as well). Together with my weak point for fast 85mm's, and that I really missed the Oly in my 85mm's comparison at http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_Takumar_85mm.html , this really beats me!!

What would you say, is a OM-4 a good point to start with Olympus? At the very point my youngest SLR of my collection is the Pentax LX but the OM-4 would be borderline "mechanical enough" for me. And as I told, I prefer the ASA-dial on the left. Maybe I'll sell a few Rollei bodies... 😉

Hi Frank,

the 85/2 is a great lens - smaller than a Jupiter 9 and a nice Ernostar.

I now mostly use either OM-1 and OM-4 - they are both great cameras.
I prefer the OM-4 over the OM-4T because it brasses nicely (instead of
paint flaking with the Titanium bodies). But of course this is highly
personal.

Yes, starting with an OM-4 sounds good - it will give you features you
don't get anywhere else in this size in a classic body. Great mixture
of compact body, bright large viewfinder, and sophisticated metering
system.

Enjoy !

Roland.