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!

My first film camera I bought in 2020 for only $100 paired with a FD 50mm 1.4

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).

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.

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.

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.

I own both. I rather go with the Cannon because the manual shutter dial is easier to access.

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.

I've had several A series Canons. I have an A-1 now which is more of a "prosumer" camera than the AE-1

Unfortunately, these are no longer really cheapies. Especially the Canon. Nice comparison though. I'd love to see you compare some 90s Nikons. They are often neglected and often cheaper.

A farer Comparison, would have been with a Canon AV-1, as both would be Aperture Priority.

i just never understood the need or shutter priority as opposed to aperture priority..

I wouldn't call the Cannon a "cheapy." It's a brilliant camera.

Nikon EL2 > both of these, often cheaper too, the Nikkormat FT3 as well:) I suppose these are smaller, so that is that...

Canon AE-1 Cheap?????????