My A1 had the squeal fwiw.
sent from phone. excuse my typing.
"If its not broken, I can't afford it."
I don't think anyone described it as mechanical, I certainly didn't. What makes the AT-1 unusual is it's a manual camera from the non-mechanical era. That's a good or bad thing depending on your expectations. What started life as a cheap SLR variation for developing camera markets that couldn't afford automated versions like the A-1, turned out to be a hybrid that still makes a lot of sense almost four decades on, if you like full control, light weight and modern battery power. Not too many cameras fit that bill.
Originally Posted by camtec
What I like about it is the viewfinder match needle provides an 'index' of under/over exposure by comparing it to the central 'correct' position. In other words you can assess the scene and tweak the aperture ring for highlights or shadows by moving the needle to the edge of the match circle (a half or whole stop, etc) without removing your eye from the eyepiece, or being assailed by LEDs, shutter speeds, apertures, arrows or whatever. I believe that's the speediest way of metering, while still retaining full compensation of each shot as it occurs. Quicker than any smart override I've used anyway.
Last edited by blockend; 06-22-2014 at 03:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
If there was a scale fixed to the circle-watch of the AT-1, one could easily "place" luminosities like on the Zero.adjust dial of the Profisx meter.
So there only are for sure 1/2 and 1 stop deviation. 1 1/2 and 2 stops would also be possible by extrapolation in case of linearaity.
The meter of the AT-1 is 2 stops less sensitive than that of the AE-1. It also uses a photo-resistor instead of a photo-diode/trabsistor.
The AL-1 also has an easy manual exposure mode.
Originally Posted by John Koehrer
A Nikon FE will go to 1/4000, it just does not show it on the scale. This was verified to me by Pete Smith RIP, the Nikonsmith using some pretty damn sophisticated testing equipment. The FE is a dandy. I have 2, one for color and one for B/W. See Ken Rockwell's review of the FE. One time I totally agree with him. Last one I got for $40 and it works perfect. Mate it with the Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS (not the E) and you have the sharpest and most bombproof rig out there.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The real difference between Nikon and Canon in the current market, is the cost of manual lenses.
Originally Posted by ToddB
You never say what it is you plan to do with either camera. But for general shooting, I'd say the Nikon FE is better than an AE-1.
Now, my 2 cents, a better Canon is the AE-1 Program. Even though it is considered a shutter priority camera, the AE-1P displays aperture in the viewfinders as you adjust the shutter speed dial and blinks if you get below 1/60th to let you know when you are getting into slow shutter speed conditions. It has always been an easy, reliable, and predictable camera to use, (33 years now). I personally like being able to focus with my left hand, adjust aperture and shutter speed simultaneously with my right forefinger on the shutter speed dial. I basically ignore the aperture ring and to me, that makes the AE-1P a fast camera to shoot when you learn how to use it that way.
Don't get me wrong, I shoot Nikon film and digital FX as well. I appreciate both brands.
A friend of mine was given his Father's AV-1 (the Aperture preferred version of AE-1) and it's a gem. He's a total novice, but it all works out for him when I showed him DoF theory and how shutter speeds affect motion.
- Konica T3N
- Konica FS-1
- Nikon F4s
- Nikon F5
- Nikon F801
I would opt for the FE. It has a more smooth film advance, match needle metering not obtrusive/bloating the viewfinder (although under certain conditions you cannot see it), less noisy shutter, and long exposures for as long as your battery lasts.
The only advantage of the Canon, I have the A-1, would be the ease to use M42 lenses with no corrective optics.