Canon LTM Why Didn't Canon 7 Take Over the World?

[amateriat]

Barret,

David H. Kennerly is shooting Nikon F's in that photo...so why did you go for an F1 instead of an F ? LOL

Oh, that was the crazy New York contrarian welling up inside. Ten of your buds say "Nikon's the s---, man, do it!" And I find out elliot Erwitt shoots with F-1s, so...

I was almost as susceptible to this stuff as anyone else at the time. If Henri, when I was introduced to him him hastily at the old Magnum HQ, had the time to pull me aside and say "This silly SLR stuff, they all say, 'moderne!', but I say ignore them...!", where would I be now? At a table on the Left bank with a beret, a d half-full carafe of Cabernet and a terrible smoking habit.....?

(And a closetful of Leicas...oh, yes, somebody wake me up now...)


- Barrett

 

[jan normandale]

I recall reading somewhere that Nikon decided to promote it's camera by strategically seeding the market (high profile photo journalists) with cameras to use as "field test models" in order to improve the camera through user feedback.

As a marketing move it was brilliant. First, the top of the pyramid was co-opted. Then their peers saw these "new cameras" which caused a buzz. This created demand just like modern video game releases. By the time all the PJ's were in line, the top tier amateurs looked to them for guidance and the word was Nikon.. the rest is trickle down history and so long rangefinders. It wasn't just Canon that lost that market segment it was also the "big L" himself.

Today SLR mentality is SLR = camera. It's that simple. Ask anyone what a SLR is they know, ask what a rangefinder is and you may get some innocent but very humourous responses.

 

[harry01562]

I'd guess the primary reasons were both marketing and the emergence of the SLR. Canon seemed to like to depend on distributors who had their own products to push, and gave Canon second best, or less. They made cheap deals, and got results that matched. The SLR was new, and easier for many people to use, especially with long lenses. Result, slow demise of the 7 and emergence of the Canonflex, which they also didn't market very well... since it was also built like a tank. And it suffered from the bottom wind that Canon seemed to love, but had some deficiencies in operation in the field, and didn't get the rush of lenses that it would have needed to survive. Result, Nikon trumped them in the pro business for years.


Interesting thread...

Harry

 

[Mackinaw]

....and emergence of the Canonflex, which they also didn't market very well... since it was also built like a tank. And it suffered from the bottom wind that Canon seemed to love, but had some deficiencies in operation in the field...

Agreed that that Canonflex was sturdy and well built but what really doomed the original Canon SLRs' was the poorly designed and executed two-pin lens coupling system. While the aperture mechanism of Nikon SLR lenses (and others) were auto-cocking, the Canon "R" lenses weren't. "R" lenses had two pins, one pin cocked the aperture mechanism when the film was advanced, while the other pin actually fired the lens. If you removed the lens from a Canonflex before advancing the film, the aperture stop-down mechanism wouldn't be charged. The next time you took a picture with this lens it would fire wide-open, probably grossly over-exposing your picture.

Been there, done it as they say. I dry fire my Canonflexes on occasion, but never actually use them. I do, however, still use my Nikon F.

Jim B.

 

[amateriat]

Harry: Right. As memory serves me, Nikon's distributorship (was it EPOI from the get-go, or did they come in a little later?) had their act considerably more together than Canon's (Bell & Howell...oy!). Of course, Canon figured a few things out, and, in the early 70s, established their own HQ in the States, and, at the same time, took the gloves off in regard to Nikon (via the F-1). Wasn't sure how seriously to take any of this until I bought an F-1. 'Twas all the convincing I needed...

('Course, had I gone with Nikon, I'd have lenses that would mostly still work on a D3.) :bang:


- Barrett

 

[harry01562]

Jim: You are probably right that the primitive lens mount was a killer. Combine that with a small offering of lenses, anyway, and the camera had little appeal. Then they crowned it with the 'Flex RM, which had practically nothing going for it. Later, with the F-1, they got just about everything right, but the Nikon's had a huge following by then, and catching up was tough.

Barrett: Prior to B&H, Canon tried a couple of others with less of a network, less of a budget, and less professionalism than the movie guys (B&H). Sort of like Sony with the Betamax, which was superior to VHS, but only succeeded on the West Coast or with the TV newscrews, etc. Mediocre products with superior marketing sell better than the reverse... sad but true in most cases.

Harry

 

[lawrence]

Can anyone who lived in the 1960's recall EVER seeing a commercial for Canon 7 or 7s? I never did. I mean - if you're not going to promote your own gear - it shouldn't come as any surprise that you fade away in the marketplace.

You're right. Just took a look through some old Pop Photo and all the importer (Bell & Howell) was interested in advertising were movie cameras and SLRs, such as the Pellix. I guess the advantage of SLRs from their point-of-view was that you also got to sell a load more lenses and accessories.

 

[Vics]

When Kennerly was shooting Gerald Ford in the White House, he seemed always to be using Leicas (quiet.) So he seemed to be using the tool best suited to the job. I suspect that was true of everyone. The question for me is How did Nikon lose the PJ market to Canon?
Vic

 

[NickTrop]

Why Didn't Canon 7 Take Over the World?
---

Easy one. Because it wasn't the Yashica Electro GSN, which "completed" and "perfected" RF-style photography paradigm with "smart" engineering and automation giving it aperture priority and a stepless shutter. It's only "downside" was its affordability, which turned off gear heads then, and now. Come to think of it, with 1 million units sold(!) over a 17(!) year period, it kinda did take over the world. It's the best camera in 35mm ever made, hands down, bar none.

 

[Mackinaw]

You are probably right that the primitive lens mount was a killer. Combine that with a small offering of lenses, anyway, and the camera had little appeal. Then they crowned it with the 'Flex RM, which had practically nothing going for it.

Harry ----- Why I came down pretty hard on the Canonflex, truth be known, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for them. I have a few of the original Canonflexes and one RP, which is my favorite (but, unfortunately, locked up tighter than a drum). My biggest camera collecting gaffe was passing up a black body original Canonflex. While Dechert says that Canon probably didn't make any, I saw one at a camera show in the Detroit area back around 1995. While I suppose that it could have been painted by somebody else, I'd be willing to bet money that this was real thing. The black was the warm, rich black that Canon used back then and everything about it just looked right, from the proper brassing to the engraving-filled-with-white-paint. The camera was totally jammed and inoperative, so I passed (I think he wanted $500.00 for it). It ended up on eBay and was snatched up by an Australian collector.

Whatever, this is off-topic so back to talking about the Canon 7.

Jim B.

 

[Al Patterson]

Why Didn't Canon 7 Take Over the World?
---

Easy one. Because it wasn't the Yashica Electro GSN, which "completed" and "perfected" RF-style photography paradigm with "smart" engineering and automation giving it aperture priority and a stepless shutter. It's only "downside" was its affordability, which turned off gear heads then, and now. Come to think of it, with 1 million units sold(!) over a 17(!) year period, it kinda did take over the world. It's the best camera in 35mm ever made, hands down, bar none.

Do you drink Kool-Aid or Philly city water?

😉

 

[David Murphy]

You know I really think it's because the marketing forces behind SLR's were so powerful back then. Just as then, the marketing forces today are hell-bent on driving us into all sorts of other technologies many don't want or need (HD digital TV, BlueRay, digital cameras, iPhones, etc.).

7s. It had on board light metering, and a big selection of lenses, etc. So why on earth did PJ's decide to hoist the Nikon F and strap that big heavy hunk of metal to their necks when they could have been carrying the svelte Canon? We should all be talking about dRF's now'days instead of dSLR's. Not just for a motor drive...

 

[amateriat]

Mediocre products with superior marketing sell better than the reverse... sad but true in most cases.

Oh, tell me about it...from hi-fi to photography to kitchen appliances...

When Kennerly was shooting Gerald Ford in the White House, he seemed always to be using Leicas (quiet.) So he seemed to be using the tool best suited to the job. I suspect that was true of everyone. The question for me is How did Nikon lose the PJ market to Canon?

The only answer to me would be Canon's determination. Once the F-1 started to gain more than a toehold on the pro market, and Canon took over the reins of distribution and marketing, they began to go to town (and Canon marketed the daylights out of the F-1, with the EF, FTb, and, eventually, the A-series riding on its coattails). They didn't just have Nikon in their crosshairs; they had everybody in their sights. I never was able to pick up a photo magazine without seeing a bunch of Canon ads. They also agressively courted pro sports, particularly tennis, golf, and football (both varieties). And they've never stopped, up to this day. Nikon took a pasting from all this, and only recently have they gotten off the ropes and come back swinging (for which I'm glad, although, to pull on an old cliche, I no longer have a dog in that fight).

And to think, photography has long been the smaller (if not the smallest) part of Canon's overall business (but the most visible).


- Barrett