Camera store guy used the AE-1, I bought a Yashica FX D quartz at that time if I remember right. The AE-1 was out of my price range at the time. (about 1980 or so) I have an AE-1 now that was gifted to me thanks to the person going all digital. Love it!
I've no experience with how these hold up today, but the AE-1 was my second SLR and not a cheap camera when it launched. The use of plastic in the body was somewhat controversial (of course). It was a step up from the entry level models with support for a winder and auto exposure while still being affordable compared to an EF. I liked the AE-1 and the AE worked fairly well even with slide film and difficult light. My only complaint at the time was that manual mode was slower/harder to use than on the traditional fully manual models. Still, compared to the dumbed down OM-10 it at least had fully manual build in and not an optional accessory.
One of the benefits of the Canon AE-1 or any camera using the FD mount is it’s flange distance. The FD mount has the shortest flange distance of any slr 35mm film camera mount. This allows you to attach any film era manual lens out there with the use of an adapter with needing to worry about the rear element hitting the mirror or using a correcting element reducing image quality.
Hello! I wanted to contribute my 5 cents The OM-10 has two good features that you haven't taken into account in the comparison, how useful they are will depend on the type of photography you want to do. The first is the metering system, it is different from most cameras of the time except for the OM.2 which used the same system, it measures the light reflected off the film (OTF (Off the Film) light metering) with a very innovative system. I have compared the measurements with a Canon A-1 and despite the fact that the A-1 is a much more complete camera, the OM-10 seems more consistent in its measurements. The other feature that in my opinion is worth mentioning is that when the timer is used the camera automatically does an MLU preventing vibrations at low shutter speeds.
Ideeed it is. Perhaps due to the fact that not many AE's survived as compared to OM's, so AE's have become "precious" even though Canon sold far more of them than Olympus.
Would be interesting to see them also compared to the Nikon FG, the Pentax ME/ME super and the Minolta X300. There were a lot of good cameras made in those days.
The Canon "A Squeak" does slow the mirror down and will not get out of the way in time. There are several videos showing how to fix them. Quite easy really.
Canon figured if the AE1 could last 5 years, for the consumer, the cheapness decision would be a win. I get attached to the cameras I use, when I find these I flip them fast (no sense keeping). There is too much of a worry that these will fail. So many plastic mechanical components. Canon, with this unit, lowered the benchmark in camera craftsmanship. Going forward, the big makers switched from watch maker standard to economic builds.
It’s a plastic camera. It built very cheaply. I used an A-1 which is a serious improvement over the AE-1 then got an F1 and eventually just fully moved to Nikon. I like Canon but the AE-1 got hit hard by Instagram overhype. OM stuff is also super nice I’ve heard.
@@devendavid9tre comparatively to options by Nikon or even some Pentax or Minolta cameras the design quality and error points are vastly higher in the AE-1, and somewhat similar in the A-1 I just wouldn’t advise it to beginners. It’s not a good place to start considering the chance for failure.
Camera store guy used the AE-1, I bought a Yashica FX D quartz at that time if I remember right. The AE-1 was out of my price range at the time. (about 1980 or so) I have an AE-1 now that was gifted to me thanks to the person going all digital. Love it!
This old Olympus cameras are awesome. I have an OM-2n and I love it.
My first film camera I bought in 2020 for only $100 paired with a FD 50mm 1.4
I've no experience with how these hold up today, but the AE-1 was my second SLR and not a cheap camera when it launched. The use of plastic in the body was somewhat controversial (of course). It was a step up from the entry level models with support for a winder and auto exposure while still being affordable compared to an EF. I liked the AE-1 and the AE worked fairly well even with slide film and difficult light. My only complaint at the time was that manual mode was slower/harder to use than on the traditional fully manual models.
Still, compared to the dumbed down OM-10 it at least had fully manual build in and not an optional accessory.
One of the benefits of the Canon AE-1 or any camera using the FD mount is it’s flange distance. The FD mount has the shortest flange distance of any slr 35mm film camera mount. This allows you to attach any film era manual lens out there with the use of an adapter with needing to worry about the rear element hitting the mirror or using a correcting element reducing image quality.
Hello! I wanted to contribute my 5 cents The OM-10 has two good features that you haven't taken into account in the comparison, how useful they are will depend on the type of photography you want to do. The first is the metering system, it is different from most cameras of the time except for the OM.2 which used the same system, it measures the light reflected off the film (OTF (Off the Film) light metering) with a very innovative system. I have compared the measurements with a Canon A-1 and despite the fact that the A-1 is a much more complete camera, the OM-10 seems more consistent in its measurements. The other feature that in my opinion is worth mentioning is that when the timer is used the camera automatically does an MLU preventing vibrations at low shutter speeds.
For some reasons, the AE-1 costs a lot more than the OM-10 in my area, personally i prefer the OM-10 (it bests with the manual adapter indeed).
Ideeed it is. Perhaps due to the fact that not many AE's survived as compared to OM's, so AE's have become "precious" even though Canon sold far more of them than Olympus.
I own both. I rather go with the Cannon because the manual shutter dial is easier to access.
Would be interesting to see them also compared to the Nikon FG, the Pentax ME/ME super and the Minolta X300. There were a lot of good cameras made in those days.
The Canon "A Squeak" does slow the mirror down and will not get out of the way in time. There are several videos showing how to fix them. Quite easy really.
Beware of some of those videos
i just never understood the need or shutter priority as opposed to aperture priority..
I've had several A series Canons. I have an A-1 now which is more of a "prosumer" camera than the AE-1
Canon figured if the AE1 could last 5 years, for the consumer, the cheapness decision would be a win.
I get attached to the cameras I use, when I find these I flip them fast (no sense keeping). There is too much of a worry that these will fail. So many plastic mechanical components.
Canon, with this unit, lowered the benchmark in camera craftsmanship. Going forward, the big makers switched from watch maker standard to economic builds.
A farer Comparison, would have been with a Canon AV-1, as both would be Aperture Priority.
Canon AE-1 Cheap?????????
Cheap camera, expensive price.
It’s a plastic camera. It built very cheaply. I used an A-1 which is a serious improvement over the AE-1 then got an F1 and eventually just fully moved to Nikon. I like Canon but the AE-1 got hit hard by Instagram overhype. OM stuff is also super nice I’ve heard.
Yes, I can get them for around $100 where Im from. Sometimes even less.
Ae1 is not plastic , I picked one up for 60$ this month
@@devendavid9tre comparatively to options by Nikon or even some Pentax or Minolta cameras the design quality and error points are vastly higher in the AE-1, and somewhat similar in the A-1 I just wouldn’t advise it to beginners. It’s not a good place to start considering the chance for failure.
Nikon EL2 > both of these, often cheaper too, the Nikkormat FT3 as well:) I suppose these are smaller, so that is that...
I wouldn't call the Cannon a "cheapy." It's a brilliant camera.