BebuLamar

I didn't get anything back. It was stolen from me in 1984. I meant to buy a replacement but don't feel like paying the same price I paid for it new for a used one.

BebuLamar

$22.98 was more than what I paid for my AE-1p that I sold. I paid $17 for it with the 50mm lens. I never used though.

Bill 45

Hey we found something that we are not shooting at each other, film cameras. That all I use. I have three Yashica's camera: Yashica IC Lynx-14E, Yashica GSN and Yashica FX-3 Super 2000. That is a small part of my camera collection. All my cameras are 35mm film camera only. Rate now I using a camera that would take you back in time.
Minolta SR-1s with Minolta Rokkor=PE 1:2.8 135mm lens. Using 200 speed film. This camera does not have a light meter in it, so one has to think before taking pictures.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

About 10 years ago, it was difficult to give away film-based equipment. Now, two issues are involved:

1, the manual focus lenses can be adapted to mirrorless bodies with excellent results. Canon FD lenses have gone up in price and the highest-end L-series versions have virtually disappeared from the resale market.

2, Film have increased in popularity. Personally, I think people would enjoy film more with AF capable film bodies that share the same lenses with their DSLRs, but some want the more demanding experience of manual focus too.

Canisdirus

Doesn't change the math.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

BUT, if you knew how to use it, it was a solid body. I bought it instead of a Nikon FM or FE because it was shutter priority which suited my shooting style better than AE or manual at the time. I had 2 - one with the motor drive, and one with the winder and accumulated a stack of FD lenses. I carried it as a travel camera literally all over the world with the 35-105 zoom, and it very rarely produced an unacceptable shot. Sold both when I moved to an F1 and after 20+ years of use, the only thing they needed was a battery. I consider that it was an excellent consumer body, and the world did also as they sold a ton of them. The “P” or program version had several advantage including being able to see both the aperture and SS in the finder even if you never used the program feature (I didn’t).

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Bill I thank you for your comment. I suspect if we all took a look around us and tried to be civil in at least listening to the other side of the argument we would find common ground in any venue we might participate in. Division gets us nowhere.

I still love and use film cameras if only to take me back to a time when things were a bit slower, photos were not done by a buzzing shutter continuing to drone on long after one picture has been taken, where the photographer thought about the scene rather than just clicking on it and moving on to another.

I also use digital cameras and have two now, Sony and Nikon. Great cameras. I love using them. But the experience is not the same as using film.

My oldest 35mm camera now is a German rangefinder, a Diax II. I don't use it much but it does take great photos when I do my part. I also have a Century Graphic in 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 that I need to buy some film backs for OR buy a 120 roll film back. Two 4X5 almost new field cameras sit in the wings waiting for me to take them out for a test drive.

Thanks again,

Dennis

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

So you blamed the camera for the failings of the photographers who were using it?

The Canon AE-1 Program was a nice, solid upgrade to the very popular original AE-1. As the name implies, one of the key differences is the addition of a Program auto exposure mode to the newer model, which was introduced in 1981 (the original was intro'd five years earlier). Both cameras have Shutter Priority auto exposure and fully Manual exposure modes, too.

Another difference was that the AE-1"P" has a user interchangeable focus screen. Several different types of screens were available, such as a version with a grid etched on it to help compostion. The original AE-1's screen was not interchangeable. I think the AE-1P's viewfinder might be a little brighter, too.

Yet another difference is that the AE-1P can use the Canon Motor Drive MA, as well as the smaller and slower Canon Winder A and Winder A2. In fact, the Winder A2 was intro'd about the same time as the AE-1P. The original AE-1 can use either of the Winders, but not the motor drive.

Besides those things, the AE-1P and original AE-1 are very similar and use a lot of the same parts. This includes the horizontally running cloth shutter, which was a limiting factor of the camera. The shutter's flash sync was only 1/60, at a time when many other cameras had 1/125 and even 1/250 flash sync. Also, because the movement of the shutter was horizontal, there could be issues doing panned shots of fast moving subjects. I can't recall which, but while it worked fine panning one way (such as right to left), it didn't work properly panning the other direction (i.e., left to right... but I may have these backwards).

In addition to what was previously noted, a VERY common problem with AE-1P and all the Canon A-series cameras is a "shutter squeal". The camera makes an awful, loud squealing noise whenever the shutter is fired! This often occurs with cameras that have been sitting for a long time. It actually isn't the shutter itself, but some of the mirror movement mechanism and occurs because the lubrication has dried up and/or the mechanism needs to be cleaned. There is a trick putting a tiny droplet of lightweight oil in just the right place that will stop the squeal, but the camera really should get a more thorough "clean/lube/adjust" (CLA). If not serviced, a camera with shutter squeal will usually get slower and slower to function until it finally locks up completely.

A CLA and new light sealers are things that really should be done on a 40 year old camera that's never been serviced. It's been a long time since I've had a similar camera given a proper CLA along with new light seals... But I recall it cost about $125.

I have several AE-1P... never paid more than $25 for a chrome one, $50 for a black one in decent condition.

There's a little "grip" that fits onto these cameras. It unscrews and sometimes has been removed and lost. I'd deduct $5 or $10 from the value of a camera where that grip is missing.

If a camera has had a recent CLA and light seal service, it would certainly be worth $100 to $150 more, but it's difficult to get someone to pay $200 or more for a 40 year old camera that they often see selling for far less. Once they understand the value of the camera having been properly serviced, they might be willing to pay a bit more... but must be pretty committed to go out shooting film with manual focus lenses.

I looked up the Tamron SP 60-300mm Adaptall II (23A) lens and see them selling for $20 to $50. As an Adaptall lens, it uses an system of interchangeable mounts and can be adapted for use on virtually any 35mm film and many modern digital camera systems. In fact, Adaptall mounts are still being made in China, even for systems that didn't exist when Tamron was selling Adaptall lenses. I have Adaptall mounts for at least six or eight different mounts, including modern Canon EF and EF-M.

BebuLamar

I can't say about the AE-1p but Canon sold a lot of AE-1 because they managed to sell a camera with AE at the price of a typical manual only camera.

rrkazman

I bought a Nikon FM-2 at the same time my brother-in-law bought the AE-1. I took 10 of thousands of pictures with my FM-2, and used it well into the digital age. I was even hoping for a digital back for it. But alas no such was made. My brother-in-law stopped using his AE-1 due to exactly what you described, he did not read anything thought the camera would do all the work for him, the results were abysmal. It ended up stuffed in some dark space in a closet. While the FM-2 with a new foam kit, was sold with its lens when I purchased my Nikon Coolpix 5700. This was around 1982-83 time frame. There is interest in Film while I can't imagine why, the wonder of Digital so far surpasses the dinosaur of film. I will say that what I learned with Film has served me well with digital, many times I am asked how did you get that shot, when I explain it, I see glassy eyes looking back.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes, any camera is capable if you know how to use it. The odd thing about the early automatic exposure SLRs was the tendency of folks to buy them, assuming automation would take all the guesswork and mystery out of photography. They were glorified "point and shoots" that you had to focus.

I'm not Canon bashing here... I used Canons off and on for years. I still have an A-1 and two FD/FL lenses.

There was a marked shift in the quality of yearbook photojournalism in the late 1970s, as automatic exposure cameras came to market. It relieved one of the perceived "barriers to entry" into the world of "good" photography. But that was a problem! Suddenly every kid with a generous uncle or a good summer job bought one. The net result was, "I want a Canon AE-1. Um, what is that?" Ready? FIRE!!! Aim? WTF is aim?

We had a conference room at the Delmar yearbook plant. We kept hundreds of yearbooks from the last few decades on the bookshelves lining the walls. We usually kept the best 10-15 schools' books from each year's production run of approximately 1200 high school and college accounts.

When I signed on as an AV Producer in Spring, 1979, I often spent my lunch hours in the conference room with my boss, going through old yearbooks. He had noticed the quality of yearbook photojournalism fall off dramatically over the last couple of years. It was as if someone flipped a light switch and the consistency of candids in yearbooks evaporated. He wanted my thoughts.

When I went to my first summer workshop conference to teach a session on photography, I met seven of the suspects I mentioned above. They were complete greenhorns with zero experience behind a camera. All had Canon AE-1s. One had read her manual and exposed half a dozen rolls of film through it. She showed me some half-decent images, and had lots of questions. The others mostly acted a bit dazed, confused, and lost.

I also had four other students who were serious. Individually, they understood their Pentax Spotmatic, an older Canon FTb, a Nikkormat FT 2, and a Nikon F2AS with three lenses. Their work stood out because the four of them had read their manuals, taken introductory courses in photography, and just needed help with darkroom skills and "editorial decisions at the viewfinder."

The newbies left with a list of things I recommended for them.

GENERAL TO DO LIST:

> Read The *Fine* Manual.
> Practice what you learn on each page.
> Get some basic books on photography and read them.
> Go use the camera as much as you can.
> Find an advisor or other mentor who can give you constructive pointers on how to improve your work.

LEARN:

> Long shot, medium shot, closeup.
> Bird's eye view, worm's eye view, size perspective.
> Rule of thirds, vanishing and leading lines, layer cake.
> Contrast and color contrast.
> Negative space and positive space.
> Situational ironies, contrasts, and comparisons.
> Anticipating decisive moments.
> Recording sequences of events.
> Side light, back light, front light.
> Diffused and specular light sources.
> Flash fill, flash bounce, off camera flash.
> Available light and pushing film.
> Composing for cropping options.
> Cropping for emphasis.
> PLANNING for assignments.

I remember keeping a list of their names and schools so I could review their books in the Spring of 1980. Four of the AE-1 users did a decent job with the candids in their books — better than average, and better than the previous photographers at those schools. The other three AE-1 users either dropped off the yearbook staff, or had paid no attention to me, or made no effort to learn. Their books were mediocre, and two of their names weren't mentioned on the staff pages of the books. The four experienced photographers using manual cameras had done a stellar job, since they understood their complete responsibilities for their photographic outcomes. Their editors sang their praises.

I saw the guy with the Nikon setup and the girl with the Pentax Spotmatic at the next summer's workshop. Unsurprisingly, they came back for more! The girl with the AE-1 who had read her manual a year earlier was also there. Good performers never stop learning. They take time to sharpen their saws...

Top professionals and advanced amateurs generally understand they cannot rely blindly upon automation. They apply overrides as needed. Today, they have the modern luxury of "chimping," which film photographers do not. That makes a huge difference.

Bill 45

My oldest camera is a Nicca Type III S with the Nikkor-H.C 1:2 50mm Lens, which was made sometime in 1952. Back in May of this year I took some pictures with the camera.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I would add to additional items:

1, subscribe to the Film section here on UHH: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-136-1.html

2, research ISO adjustments to your film. I've made a lot of effort at maximizing my film results, and one of the most consequential was learning about box speed vs shooting speed. Every film is different, but most every 35mm negative film should be shot with +1/3 adjustment, such as ISO-100 (box) at ISO-80 or ISO-400 (box) at ISO-320 in the camera. This can be done by overriding DX-code detected by some advanced cameras or changing the ISO setting or using EC - exposure compensation.

These two posts are more interested in showing the film stocks in action, but you'll also see impacts of changing the ISO speed in the comments about specific images:

Praise of Kodak Portra 400

Comparing TMAX 100 vs T-MAX 400

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Great points!

Yes, “box speed” is a starting point. Each photographer should test the combination of tools and materials used, to determine the best speed for each film and desired results.

I used nine films on a regular basis. I would test each emulsion batch of film using a Q13 test target (21-step gray scale with color patches), varying exposure in 1/3 stop increments from one stop over to one stop under for slides, and two stops over to two stops under for negatives. Some batches were off by a stop! Usually +/- 1/3 was common.

It was not uncommon for me to rate most slide films 1/3 stop faster for better color saturation.

Color negative films were the opposite. I found that Portra 160 was usually E.I. (Exposure Index) 100 in practical use. It printed or scanned better if slightly overexposed. The 70mm long roll version with Estar base for retouching was E.I. 80!

I used most B&W films at box speed at normal development times. But I often pushed Tri-X to 1280 in Acufine or HP5 to 800 or 1600 in Microphen. I would sometimes adjust development for contrast as needed.

gwilliams6

Donate to a school that still teaches film photography and take a tax write-off. Not being funny here, really. Let some students learn with it.

I had both Canon AE-1 and A-1 when they first came out and made many winning shots with them as a staff photographer at Newsday Newspaper in Long Island, NY, many decades ago.

Cheers