By the 1970s, film photography had reached an inflection point. Cameras had evolved into two general categories of “simple” and “complex”. Simple cameras (“point and shoot”) were lower in cost, required little technical skill to use, and recorded useable images but were limited in quality, mostly due to their basic construction and lack of customizing features or functions. Complex cameras (generally 35mm SLRs and medium format models) were the opposite, capable of recording high quality images due to their more sophisticated construction and features but costing more and requiring a greater degree of technical skill to use. Camera manufacturers looked for ways to bring the two categories closer together. Using feedback from both camps they concentrated their attention on two key technologies: programmed exposure and autofocus. Both address fundamental needs that live at the very heart of photography.
Programmed exposure, in a nutshell, provides the camera with a means to automatically “solve the exposure triangle” to record an image. It uses the amount of available light in the scene and the sensitivity (what we now call ISO rating) of the film, using a microcomputer to compare them to a built-in scale to determine the optimum settings for aperture and shutter speed, and then automatically adjusting the camera, all within a fraction of a second. This replaced the need for a photographer to use a light meter and an exposure calculator to determine the same settings and then adjust the camera by hand. Programmed exposure meant anyone could get a reasonably well exposed image in a fraction of the time, allowing them to concentrate on composing the scene and increasing their odds of “capturing the right moment”.
Autofocus tackled another long-standing issue in obtaining a sharply focused image. Various methods of image focus have existed over the decades, from simple fixed lenses that were not adjustable and generally in focus due to the camera’s usually deep depth of field, to highly sophisticated multi-element lenses that could be adjusted to be tack-sharp on a single point in the scene. But adjustable focus lenses were often difficult to set and maintain a sharp focus despite tools built into the camera viewfinder such as split images, microprisms, and others. Some camera makers, most notably Polaroid, had limited success with a sonar-like focusing sensor mounted beside the lens. From this, camera makers evolved the technology by incorporating the sensor into the lens path itself, ensuring the photographer could choose the focus target exactly where they wanted and instantly receive feedback in the viewfinder. This also required developing a way for the camera and lens to work together so the lens elements could be moved automatically.
These two technologies did not appear simultaneously, but they did appear fairly close together. Programmed exposure came first, with the most notable amateur cameras being the Canon AE-1 Program and the Minolta X-700. Autofocus was slower to evolve, with Canon making early strides in their professional oriented T80 camera. But adapting these new technologies to existing designs was limiting their usefulness, bringing us back to that inflection point. The camera manufacturers saw the promise, but Canon and Minolta in particular realized they would need to develop completely new products to take the most advantage of these game-changing features.
And so, Canon and Minolta introduced completely redesigned camera systems. Minolta was first in 1985 with their Maxxum series, while Canon came along two years later with their EOS series. Both incorporated programmed exposure but took completely different approaches to autofocus, with Canon’s EF lens mount incorporating micromotors in the lenses while Minolta’s α (Alpha or A) mount used motors in the camera body. This difference in design allowed Canon camera bodies to be simpler, lighter, and more durable, making them easier to handle. While both mounts still exist, the EF mount is virtually unchanged, allowing any EF lens to be used on any EOS film or digital camera ever made (even mirrorless RF cameras using an adapter to adjust the mounting flange distance).
Although the EOS and Maxxum lines were introduced in the 1980s, I was still very much entrenched in using the older Minolta X series cameras. My first owned SLR was a Minolta XG-A in 1981, followed by an X-570 in 1984. While the X-700 with program mode was available at the time, I was a skeptic of the programmed exposure technology and felt very comfortable with using aperture priority for most of my work. A few years later in 1991, I could see the writing on the wall as the last X series cameras and lenses went out of production, and both the difficulty and cost of keeping them maintained would inevitably grow. I came to the difficult decision of moving into this newer technology. By then the first generations of EOS and Maxxum had come and gone, and both manufacturers had moved ahead with more refined designs that incorporated learnings from their earlier models. The natural choice was to move to the Maxxum, but I was unimpressed with their build quality and they felt clunky in my hands. The current advanced amateur EOS model at the time, the Elan, felt much more natural in my hands, and from that I made the choice to move to Canon. I used the Elan for 15 years, a silent testament to its ability to meet my needs. Along the way I learned the benefits of using both autofocus and program mode, especially given my lifestyle changes at the time involved raising a family and keeping up with rapidly moving young children.
Since then I have been a Canon user through and through, all the way to my current DSLRs. But my curiosity brought me to a question: what would those early days have been like if I’d jumped to EOS when it was first introduced? How different would they have been from using the Elan? I recently had the chance to find out, having acquired a first-generation EOS 620 and a late-first-generation EOS RT through online auctions.
I took both of these cameras out on a shoot covering two local cemeteries; you can read about each of those in more detail in my posts “Shooting With The Oldest EOS” and “A Shoot With The Rarest EOS”. So how did they feel during the shoot? They felt basic. The programmed exposure mode worked. The autofocus system worked. Anything beyond that required using a button-driven menu system that was anything but intuitive. The 620 and the RT prove the concept Canon set out to create was sound: a purpose-designed camera incorporating program mode and autofocus was the path into the future. The Elan was the beneficiary of this, keeping the promise of the EOS design by building on that solid foundation with refinements that made it feel even better in the hand and more intuitive to use.