So, why isn't Canon 'cool?'

[tunalegs]

There seem to be some variations in understanding when it comes to "cool". Some apparently think it's good to be "cool". Others (including me) take it as something of a joke word, to be used either ironically or by the terminally stupid.

Cheers,

R.

Yeah but that's just because you're not cool. 😀

Or maybe you're really cool? Sarcasm and irony are after all the hallmarks of "coolness" in our era. Joke words are for hipsters.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Brett,

Gamma Duflex 1947: instant return mirror, auto diaphragm, right way up/right way round viewing, but via mirrors not pentaprism (late Duflexes apparently had pentaprisms). In the same year (1947) Wray filed patents for a pentaprism SLR but this wasn't present when the Wrayflex came to market.

I completely agree that the 1953 Praktina was one of the most advanced system SLRs of its day, and far more important for innovation than the Praktica. It sold more than the Gamma Duflex but not as many as the Praktica. But don't forget Alpa: Alpa and Exakta both offered interchangeable pentaprisms in the same year, 1950.

Pentax showed a prototype through-lens meter at photokina 1960, which led to their partially honest claims about being "first", but they did not make a production camera with through-lens metering until 1964, the same year that the Alpa 9d offered through-lens metering. The first to market was the Topcon Super D/RE Super in 1963.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Spanik]

Whatever you think, for me the change from FD to EF was the smartest move they did. All the other makers had to change later on as well leading to several AF lenses that are almost but not quite compatible.

The change to EF-S and EF-M on the other hand is far more dabatable.

 

[michaelwj]

I understand this is above all about the film era. But in the digital age, hasn't been Canon the SLR market leader? /snip/

Market leader like Toyota? Really cool!
That is part of the problem, they are the market leader and the market leader is never* cool. Microsoft anyone?

*never as in probably not.

 

[michaelwj]

Is Kai Nikon and Lok Canon? 😀

 

[wakarimasen]

Whatever you think, for me the change from FD to EF was the smartest move they did.

I believe Nikon are now doing the same thing, with their latest 'E' lenses?

 

[ajramirez]

I believe Nikon are now doing the same thing, with their latest 'E' lenses?

Yes, 30 years later...

 

[Wulfthari]

Was Pentax really first to start selling SLRs with TTL metering? I am an admirer of various Pentax products myself but was unaware of their pre-eminence in this aspect of metering technology. Most references cite the Topcon RE Super.
Regards,
Brett

Your points about the Exakta are just nitpicking and weasel words, but this statement is simply false.

The Spotmatic was presented in 1960 as a prototype, and it was the first SLR with TTL metering.

It also had a spotmeter metering.

Once the prototype was shown all their competitors started to work on the technology, the fact that Topcon arrived on the market few months before Pentax is irrelevant.

 

[ajramirez]

G lenses do work in S and P AE mode on the F4, and will stop down to the smallest aperture on all manual focus bodies. Non AI lenses will not fit bodies with rigid AI coupler, and need a AI modification. And some lens/body combinations limit you to stop-down metering or disable all metering. Compared to the Canon issue of a incompatible register preventing focus to infinity these are relatively harmless.

Exactly. Having to shoot lenses at minimum aperture all the time makes them, in my book, useless. This full backwards compatibility claim is, IMO, hogwash.

Canon's approach was kind of like pulling a band aid quickly. Painful in 1987, but painless afterwards. AFAIK, every EF lens made since 1987 is compatible with every body (film or digital) made since then (EF-S lenses being the exception). With Nikon, you may own a set of AF or AF-D lenses (as I do) that do not autofocus on D3XXX or D5XXX bodies. You are also limited by the small lens mount, as to the potential maximum aperture of lenses. I own Nikon and love Nikon, but I have to say that Canon's decision to drop the FD mount and move to a completely electronic interface in 1987 was smart and Nikon should have done the same, instead of doing it piecemeal over the last 30 years.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Your points about the Exakta are just nitpicking and weasel words, but this statement is simply false.

The Spotmatic was presented in 1960 as a prototype, and it was the first SLR with TTL metering.

It also had a spotmeter metering.

Once the prototype was shown all their competitors started to work on the technology, the fact that Topcon arrived on the market few months before Pentax is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant to the question I politely asked you, which was who was the first to sell one. You've claimed my suggestion this was Topcon is simply false, despite also mentioning the Topcon arrived on the market first. Perhaps that's your definition of nitpicking: when a person (other than yourself) is wrong, even when they're right. 🙂

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Dear Brett,

Gamma Duflex 1947: instant return mirror, auto diaphragm, right way up/right way round viewing, but via mirrors not pentaprism (late Duflexes apparently had pentaprisms). In the same year (1947) Wray filed patents for a pentaprism SLR but this wasn't present when the Wrayflex came to market.

I completely agree that the 1953 Praktina was one of the most advanced system SLRs of its day, and far more important for innovation than the Praktica. It sold more than the Gamma Duflex but not as many as the Praktica. But don't forget Alpa: Alpa and Exakta both offered interchangeable pentaprisms in the same year, 1950.

Pentax showed a prototype through-lens meter at photokina 1960, which led to their partially honest claims about being "first", but they did not make a production camera with through-lens metering until 1964, the same year that the Alpa 9d offered through-lens metering. The first to market was the Topcon Super D/RE Super in 1963.

Cheers,

R.

You've mentioned the Gamma before here I reckon, Roger, and I'd forgotten about that until you brought it up, thanks!
Off topic to the thread but re: SLRs generally—I responded to your thread about the Super BC a while back. I have English instructions for the magazine backs, I'm pretty sure. I'd love to see you have another go!
Cheers
Brett

 

[Fraser]

Dig a little deeper still and you'll find that the Land Rover (preferably Series rather than Defender) is universally acknowledged as best. The Series II/IIa is to 4WD what the Nikon F is to SLRs, i.e. not a mediocre rip-off of what has gone before.

Cheers,

R.

Except a rip-off of a Willys Jeep😀😀
Sometimes its just not cool to be cool, oh but that makes Canon cooler😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Once the prototype was shown all their competitors started to work on the technology, the fact that Topcon arrived on the market few months before Pentax is irrelevant.

Not really. There's a big difference between patenting an idea, or even building a prototype, and bringing it to market. People had been "working on the technology" for years, well before Pentax showed the Spotmatic prototype.

Wray patented a through-lens meter for an SLR in 1947: see http://www.wrayflex.co.uk/

Canon patented a TTL metering system in 1958: http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Canon_RF_2e.html

The first camera with TTL metering was the Mec 16SB in 1960: http://submin.com/16mm/collection/mec/index.htm

The first through-lens meter in a series production SLR was either the Contaflex Super B (admitredy leaf shutter) or the Topcon Super D/RE Super.

Pentax did NOT make the first production SLR with TTL metering, though they love to pretend they did. Why have you invested quite so much in their misleading claims?

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Wasn't the Spotmatic intended to have spot metering but didn't by the time it was produced and sold?

As for SLR's I've seen ones that took glass plates but I guess that won't count...

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Except a rip-off of a Willys Jeep😀😀
Sometimes its just not cool to be cool, oh but that makes Canon cooler😀

That's why I said MEDIOCRE rip-off...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You've mentioned the Gamma before here I reckon, Roger, and I'd forgotten about that until you brought it up, thanks!
Off topic to the thread but re: SLRs generally—I responded to your thread about the Super BC a while back. I have English instructions for the magazine backs, I'm pretty sure. I'd love to see you have another go!
Cheers
Brett

Dear Brett,

The REAL "what if", though, is the Wray patent: see http://www.google.com/patents/US2608921 By the time the Pentax prototype appeared, through-lens metering was an engineering problem, not a novelty -- and it was a problem Pentax could not quickly solve in a production context, unlike Zeiss and Topcon.

Thanks again for the offer. I'd love a photocopy, as soon as I can figure out how to pay you for the postage on the book as well. Have you a Paypal account? I don't know how it works but my brother-in-law does. PM me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[NeeZee]

Since when are SLRs cool? They all look the same and black out every time you want to take a photo. 🙄

 

[Mackinaw]

Dear Jim,

I can remember when they came out. A friend bought one. I couldn't believe how awful it was, especially the very bright focusing screen that was next to useless for focusing compared with almost any appropriate Nikon screen. The lenses were mediocre too.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Awful? A matter of opinion I guess, but there’s no denying the impact of the OM-1 on the 35mm camera industry. Almost all 35mm cameras downsized and became lighter because of the OM-1.

Being an old guy, I was around back then and, while tempted, never sold my Canon FD gear to buy an OM-1. But about three years back, a friend of mine, knowing I still used film cameras, gave me her rarely-used OM-1. As somebody who still regularly uses a Nikon F and a Canon F-1, the size and weight difference between the three cameras is dramatic. I can see why the OM-1 caused the sensation it did back in 1973.

Jim B.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Almost all 35mm cameras downsized and became lighter because of the OM-1. . . .

Dear Jim,

Not really. SLRS mostly stayed the same size -- the Nikon F2 is hardly saller than the F -- and compacts didn't really get much smaller after the Rollei 35 came out in 1966, with the exception of the Minox 35.

Such cameras as did get smaller were perhaps a part of the zeitgeist: in other words, it wasn't because of the OM-1, but merely happened at the same time. Many older SLRs were pretty svelte to begin with: the Pentax SV springs to mind.

Yes, the OM-1 is smaller than a Nikon F or Canon F1, but then, those are both fair-sized cameras. When the OM-1 came out I was using Nijkon Fs and Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Roger,

Awful? A matter of opinion I guess, but there’s no denying the impact of the OM-1 on the 35mm camera industry. Almost all 35mm cameras downsized and became lighter because of the OM-1.

Being an old guy, I was around back then and, while tempted, never sold my Canon FD gear to buy an OM-1. But about three years back, a friend of mine, knowing I still used film cameras, gave me her rarely-used OM-1. As somebody who still regularly uses a Nikon F and a Canon F-1, the size and weight difference between the three cameras is dramatic. I can see why the OM-1 caused the sensation it did back in 1973.

Jim B.

Dear Jim,

I'm pretty sure this is an example of sarcasm. It's tough to pull it off on the internet but I think Roger did well! 🙂

In reference to the original post that started this thread. "Coolness" is relative. Nikon and Canon both make and have made fine cameras for longer than I have been alive and I'm going to be 56 soon so I've been around a bit.

A few posters have hit on the change from FD to EOS mount as being a sore point for Canon and something that makes them uncool. A few other posters pointed out the brilliance of that same move and said that was what cemented them firmly in the Canon camp.

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own cameras from both sides of the argument, as well as other brands in both film and digitial and I enjoy using them all.

However, if I suddenly found $25,000.00 dropped into my lap and was free to purchase my dream system as one who enjoys sports and nature photography it's Canon all the way for me.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂