|WikiProject Photography||(Rated Start-class)|
I replaced what looked like a stock image of the AE-1 with a photo of my very own baby. The other was very small (200px or so) and grainy, so I felt this was an okay change. --PhilipNeustrom 00:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I noticed my change was reverted. I will attempt to take a clear, head-on, no background shot of my AE-1 with the 50mm lens on it. --22.214.171.124 22:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I know that the common wisdom is that the original AE-1 was discontinued with the introduction of the AE-1 Program in 1981. However, Canon continued to produce—and advertise the AE-1 beyond this date. I contacted Canon for confirmation of this fact, and was informed that the original AE-1 was produced until 1984. Unschool 03:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good work, but it would be better if you could find a cite for this. If you received this confirmation in paper mail or email, would you be able to post this online somewhere? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have the email, but have no idea how to go about posting it (or even where—this discussion page, I suppose?). Seeking advice. Unschool 04:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oops. I forgot all about this. Anyway, this is just cut and pasted from my actual email exchange with Cannon. [I have deleted my name.] This doesn't seem like a very effective way to document this, but I don't know what else to do. Unschool
Name = [deleted]
E-mail = firstname.lastname@example.org
Resident Country/ Region = Florida, USA
I have a question about the AE-1. I know it was introduced in 1976, as your excellent website makes clear. But I have an acquaintance who tells me that production on the AE-1 was halted in 1981, when the AE-1 Program was introduced.
Now I purchased a brand-new AE-1 (non-Program) in April of 1984, in Bloomington, Illinois. Is it possible that that camera had been setting on a store shelf for 3 years, or is it possible (as I think) that AE-1 production was not halted in 1981, as my friend asserts?
I look forward to, and thank you for your answer.
Thank you for contacting Canon regarding your Canon AE-1. I am responding on behalf of the Canon, Inc. offices in Japan. Production of the Canon AE-1 continued until 1984.
I hope that this information is helpful, and that you will contact me directly at the toll free number below if you have any other questions.
Sincerely, Paul Slater Canon Corporate Customer Relations (757) 222-9000, ext. 2290
Unschool 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article makes the AE-1 seem like a cheap, problematic design heavily marketed to people who though they bought a quality camera. Is this (or something less exaggerated, maybe) really the accepted view?
I used and abused two of these fairly heavily through the 1980s and well into the 1990s, and I had the impression that they were robust, quality cameras. JöG 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the article makes the camera look really cheap when it is actually one of the most durable and reliable amateur-priced SLRs ever made. There are hundreds of thousands of these things in use 30 years later; there is not much of a market due to the obsolete lens mount but many people still use this as their daily camera.
As a professional photographer I carry an AE-1 as a last resort backup camera on every important shoot I do. It is my security blanket, if my digitals fail, if my old film camera's fail, I have total faith that the AE-1 will get me through almost any event I encounter. It's been my experience that the AE-1 is one of the most reliable 35mm cameras ever designed. This article does not do it justice. The amount of abuse I've seen people dish out on the AE-1 is legendary in scope & yet nearly every time the camera can be picked up, dusted off, and used again without a second thought. (126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
I also agree - this article is not only a distortion of the durability of this fine quality amateur camera, it's written with an almost condescending tone. It's almost as if the author had some sort of stake in Nikon, Olympus or Minolta's future and resented the AE-1's popularity. My original AE-1 is still going, as is one I bought for a girlfriend well over twenty years ago. A fine example of the failed objectivity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that section of the article should be editted. While true that many of these issues exist, the tone of the paragraph almost makes it seem like the AE-1 is a horrifically flawed camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No doubt, the AE-1 is legendary in it's reliability. Most of the photographers I know, myself included, have one in their gadget bag because, when everything else fails, the AE-1 won't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Under/overexposure on the AE-1
Article asserts that there was no way to properly expose due to using only one needle indicator. "The AE-1 had only one pointer needle used to indicate the light meter recommended f-stop, and neither a follower needle to indicate the actual lens set f-stop, nor plus/minus indicators for over/underexposure." Read the manual. The needle had a circle at the end. The circle was exactly 1 stop wide. Bisecting the indicator (circle in half) gave you the exact aperture being metered. Resting the circle on top of the indicator gave you a half-stop over, resting it below gave you a half-stop under. And most shooters quickly learned where to position the circle to under or overexpose pretty accurately. Since you turned the f-stop ring (one click per half stop) to set the aperture, and the indicator moved as you did so, the idea that there was no way to know what f-stop you had is either a false claim, or a poorly written sentence attempting to make a different claim. As well, the following sentences are I think in violation of NPOV; it is the writer's opinion that the shutter was poorly adapted for sports use, etc., but the claim would only be worth making if you could show that it was a commented upon failing of the design. As it stands, it's just an opinion, unsupported by any citations, for example, numerous reviews of the product. Theonemacduff (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)