Who was the Canon EF for?

[marc_rochkind]

The Canon EF of 1973 had the build quality of and a body like the F-1, which had come out a couple of years

earlier. Key advances over the F-1 were more advanced metering, a vertically-traveling metal shutter which was

electronically controlled at slow speeds, and, most importantly, shutter-priority auto-exposure. It lacked

interchangeable viewfinders and focusing screens. Neither the back nor the bottom plate came off, and there was

no motor drive.

 

I don't know whether photographers lusted for an EF in 1973, but they sure do now. Only the T90, which came out a

dozen years later, is so desired by modern photographers who want an FD camera.

 

The wonders of the EF are very well laid out in a long post by Andy Game about 3 years ago:

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00PqWp

 

With its simpler body and advanced automation, you would think the EF in the early 1970s would have been perfect for novice photographers, or as a backup body for an F-1.

 

But the problem was the price. Looking at some ads in the back of the March 1975 issue of Popular Photography, I

see that the EF cost only slightly less than an F-1. For example, Cambridge Camera Exchange has the F-1 with 50mm

f1.8 lens at $388.95, and the EF with the same lens at $379.50. Other ads are similar.

 

So an F-1 is a better choice for a backup to an F-1 than is an EF. And, at those prices, only wealthy novices

would buy an EF. An FTb with 50mm f1.8 lens was only $220, and it could be an F-1 backup, too.

 

If the EF wasn't for pros who needed a spare body, and if it wasn't going to be Canon's competitor to Nikon's

Nikkormat EL, then who was it for?

 

My guess is that Canon absolutely had to have an auto-exposure SLR at that time, there was a group in Canon that

wanted to make the ultimate SLR, and they weren't in a position to make a moderately-priced auto-exposure camera

(FTc?), so the result was the EF. It made the press drool, judging by articles of the day that I've read, and

that was what Canon needed.

 

Of course, we know what actually happened later: The Canon AE-1 came out about three years after the EF, even

more electronic than the EF, in a much cheaper body, and sales exploded. The EF was dropped.

 

(Maybe the EF wasn't the right strategic move by Canon, but I'm sure glad they made them. I got mine yesterday in

an eBay auction for about $110, and it's in perfect shape, very little used. Which raises another question,

possibly related to the main question: Who would buy an EF and not use it?)

[User_502260]

<p>This topic has come up before. I have a fully overhauled EF and three which have not (yet) been overhauled. The Servo EE finder for the Canon F-1 and the DS1-EE attachment for the Nikon F2 were both very cumbersome ways of getting these mechanical shutter system cameras to work with shutter priority auto exposure. It would not be until 1980 for Nikon and 1981 for Canon that full system cameras would have auto exposure with electronic or electronically governed shutters. Canon leaned toward shutter priority while Nikon leaned toward aperture priority. The EF was aimed at the person who was also looking at a Konica Autoreflex T3, a Nikkormat EL, a Mamiya Auto XTL ,a Miranda Autosensorex EE or a Pentax ESII. Why would someone but an Ef and then not use it? That's more of a psychology question than a photography question.<br />I do a lot of shooting with grid screens. I find them to be good all around screens and especially so for macro and slow lens work. There is no focusing aid in the center to black out or darken. If I am doing general shooting and will not get closer than about 1:5 I can be happy using an EF all day. If I do need to get closer I would rather use an F-1 with a D screen. One thing I find somewhat awkward about the EF is locking an exposure reading. The silicon cell meter of the EF is faster than the CdS system in the F-1 bit it is not more accurate. The EF meter pattern is also a center weighted one. I wish the EF had the 12 degree metering pattern of the F-1. With the F-1N I get the fast silicon cells and I can choose different metering patters by changing the focusing screens but there is no provision for locking the reading in Aperture Priority mode. This leaves me using the F-1N with the AE finder mostly in match needle manual mode. <br />I think the EF was a stop-gap camera made up of available parts/systems. It has many good points and is a pleasant enough camera to use. Is it as sturdy as an F-1? Probably not. It was not made to withstand use with a motor or winder. Canon did not decide to use vertically running shutters until the T90 and EOS models, with the exception of the EF. I enjoy using my F-1 cameras and my other mechanical FD cameras but if I need a high flash synch speed I use something else. I can get 1/125 from the EF, Nikkormats or my mechanical Konica Autoreflex cameras. The Nikon FE2 will give me 1/250 and I think the Nikon F90X will give me 1/300. If I need an even faster speed I can use one of my Bronica SLRs with a leaf shutter at 1/500.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>When you get it, you <em>will</em> make a post with pictures [making a Jedi hand wave].</p>

<p> </p>

[rick_janes]

<p>It's funny how Canon remembers it...as quoted from their own Museum: <br>

"This camera's main feature was the first and last of its kind. It was the Copal Square, a vertical-travel, metal-curtain, focal-plane shutter.<br>

<br />The camera's specifications and ease of use were ideal for aged users. Just press the shutter button for shutter speed-priority TTL automatic exposure. A silicon photocell was used for full-aperture centerweighted averaging metering. Fast shutter speeds from 1/2 sec. to 1/1000 sec. and bulb were mechanically-controlled while slow speeds from 1 sec. to 30 sec. were electronically-controlled."</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>As the owner of both the EF and the first F1 I can provide my perspective. The EF was sold as a Automatic (shutter priority) camera. If you have a manual you will notice that it never explains how to shot in manual (except for a section on stopped down use). In essence it tells you to set the lens on O (or A) and leave it there. When you get your EF you will find it is not easy to use fully manual as you get shutter and aperture speed in the display (i.e. it tells you the shutter speed you have across the bottom and the aperture you need on the side). Unless you are in Tv you have to take your eye away from the viewfinder and look at the lens to set the aperture before you shoot. In contrast the F1 tells you the shutter speed and above that is a scale showing the metered aperture and the aperture set on the lens - you match the two needles and shoot. thus the F1 is really a manual exposure camera while the EF is really shutter priority.<br>

In addition the F1 has a slightly better build quality - it is heavier and feels more solid. The switches on the F1 (especially the meter on switch) are much stronger. Finally the EF has a mix of electronic and mechanical shutter speeds going to 1/1000 while the F1 is all mechanical and goes to 1/2000 but only goes as slow as 1 second. In terms of desirability the EF is a great camera and certainly rare but I think that in addition to the T90 the New F1 is more sought after. Of course the EF has the benefit of not needing re-calibration or a voltage adaptor - the EF can use 1.5V batters without an issue.<br>

In terms of flash use I almost always shoot EOS (and usually digital) - shooting flash with these old cameras is really just a test to see if you can still do it - the latest EOS DSLRs and 580 EXII with STE2 makes flash work very simple - even with complex set ups. Putting my old Metz on an EF or F1 is something you do for fun - not for great lighting.<br>

Enjoy your EF $110 is a great price for a mint rarely used one. If you have not got an F1 I suggest that this is next on your list. I love my old F1 - it feels almost as good as my M6 when I use it (My New F1s are better cameras but are not quite as tactile as the first model).</p>

[rick_janes]

<p>It's funny how Canon remembers it...as quoted from their own Museum: <br>

"This camera's main feature was the first and last of its kind. It was the Copal Square, a vertical-travel, metal-curtain, focal-plane shutter.<br>

<br />The camera's specifications and ease of use were ideal for aged users. Just press the shutter button for shutter speed-priority TTL automatic exposure. A silicon photocell was used for full-aperture centerweighted averaging metering. Fast shutter speeds from 1/2 sec. to 1/1000 sec. and bulb were mechanically-controlled while slow speeds from 1 sec. to 30 sec. were electronically-controlled."</p>

[marc_rochkind]

I'm not sure I made my point clear. Of course the EF was suitable for lots of things.

 

But, how did Canon expect it to compete when it was priced so high? (It's a marketing question, not a technical

question.) It seems to be in a completely different price class than, say, the Nikkormat EL.

 

@Philip: I do have an F-1. Also Canonflex, FT, Pellix, FTb, AE-1, and AL-1.

[philip_wilson]

<p>I think at the time (I was still at school but...) automatic exposure was an expensive feature. So you could get cheap cameras, and pro cameras - the idea of an automatic camera (remember aperture or shutter priority was a new thing) was seen as the greatest thing in automation, hence the premium. Remember how the AE1-P sold as you had programme where the camera did "everything". Later you had AF and the T80 in the mid 1980s was $550 with the F1.8 lens - same price as the A1 with the 50 F1.8 (and considerably more than the T70 with the same lens).<br>

Compared to the EL it is better built (has the novelty of shutter not aperture priority) and had the CAt flash system. I suspect that it's high price did limit sales but it sold about half way between the FTbN and the F1. An amateur photographer review of the time has the FTbN at GBP 180, the EF at GBP250 and the F1 at GBP 315. I think the Nikon was less but it also sold in higher volumes I believe.</p>

[michael_linn]

<p>It was built for me.</p>

<p>I bought mine new in 1974 and still own it. It had the then-new blue silicon photo cells and it was deadly on with Kodachrome. That's all I shot then. That's what it was all about- getting the exposure right out to 30 seconds and reciprocity failure be damned.</p>

<p>Nothing else came close at the time. That was worth money.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>For me, it was pure art. I spent a full year, as a Junior in High School, saving to buy the camera. I still remember its wonderful smell, the gold and burgundy box, and twin Styrofoam shells. It is still one of my favorite cameras, and it has always been a joy to use. For those who liked Calder, Kline, and Johns, they surely must appreciate the Canon EF.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>I was just going to post a simple "me", but I see Mr. Linn beat me to it:)<br>

I think it was the spiritual precursor to the A1 - built for what I believe Kodak termed as "adams", advanced amateurs. Much like the A1, I wouldn't be surprised if it found its way to the camera bag of some pros, although the newer camera was more of a system than the EF was allowed to be - technology of the time being a factor I am sure, as well as maybe a more heavy handed marketing "directive". I love the camera, its one of my favourites - it handles right, does everything right, and looks just perfect! </p>

[User_4136860]

<p>According to the Canon Museum the EF was "particularly suitable for old people", http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1966-1975/1973_ef.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=f I had to wait until I was old before I was able to afford to buy one.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I own most of the Canon FD cameras with the exception of the AE1, and the EF is the smoothest in operation of them all, the build quality is the same as the F1 and the Copal Square shutter is superb.<br>

At the time the EF was made I worked at a pro dealers and sold them, and as Peter wrote it did "find it's way into the camera bag of many pros" because the metering system was much more sophisticated than the current F1 at that time and they found it to be an excellent back up camera.<br>

The only criticism I have of the EF is that I wish the wind on lever had wider stand off position like the A1 so you can get your thumb behind it easier.</p>

[barryreid]

I think it was made for canon, not for users, as a test bed for the auto exposure technology that would come in the A-

series. In much the same way that the T80 & T90 were for the Eos system. Nothing wrong in that either, after all the

T90 turned out pretty well too.