Are there Canons that handle like the F100?

[mawz]

With normal primes, AF-S is just quieter. It's certainly not faster than screwdriver AF on a high-end body. The big motor on the F100 and F5/F6 can really toss those little primes around (the 50G in fact AF's slower than a 50/1.4D on a high-end body).

As to them being old and not updated recently, for the most part the Nikon primes are of similar vintage to the Canon. For example both system's 35/2 designs dates to the late 80's, as do both systems 85/1.8's (And both have been updated physically but not optically). Canon does have an advantage in a couple places (Notably the 35L and 24L, and the 135L as well) but Nikon has advantages elsewhere (the Nikon 20/2.8 is both half the size of and significantly sharper than the Canon, the Nikon 105/2 greatly outperforms the Canon 100/2 optically, the Nikon PC-E lenses are better than the TS-E's, especially the 24). If you need really fast wides, Canon's your only option (although rumour has it that Sony will be adding a Zeiss fast/wide to go with the 35/1.4G, and it will work fine on a Maxxum 7 or 9).

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I'll never sell it. Canon seems to offer more primes, and update them more often. They have USM primes. Nikon has just the AF-S 50mm, and their teles/super teles.

A lot of the prime lens "updating" carried out by the major manufacturers is simply to make them easier/chaper to produce.

In Nikon's case, many AI/AIS versions are optically better than their AF equivalents.

But if you want he latest bells & whistles at all costs, Canon is the way to go...
;-)

 

[SilverGlow]

The bad thing about Nikon primes, and on the wide end is that they're too slow. F2.8? Give me a break! Canon provides several at F1.4, F1.8, and on the standard focal length F1.2 even. What is the point of having a wide prime at F2.8?!? A faster aperture means brighter view finder, better/faster focus lock. For wide fast primes Canon is the way to go.

 

[SilverGlow]

Something that might be a parallel to your F100 would be an EOS 3, although the EOS 3 is made of plastic(damn good plastic though). The F100 and the EOS 3 are at about the same product level, you should also try the EOS 1v, which is the highest model, its really durable and its my next camera.

Plastic shell OVER a metal frame/body. You forgot to meniton this about the EOS-3.

Also, the EOS-3 has more focus points then the F100, and eye-control focus too.

Also, the EOS-3 is sealed against weather and dust. Is the F100?

 

[SilverGlow]

A lot of the prime lens "updating" carried out by the major manufacturers is simply to make them easier/chaper to produce.

In Nikon's case, many AI/AIS versions are optically better than their AF equivalents.

But if you want he latest bells & whistles at all costs, Canon is the way to go...
;-)

I guess you never used a Canon 24L F1.4. 35L F1.4, 135L F2, 200L F2. Nikon has no primes that match or exceed these Canon primes.

 

[Chazzy]

The bad thing about Nikon primes, and on the wide end is that they're too slow. F2.8? Give me a break! Canon provides several at F1.4, F1.8, and on the standard focal length F1.2 even. What is the point of having a wide prime at F2.8?!? A faster aperture means brighter view finder, better/faster focus lock. For wide fast primes Canon is the way to go.

You forgot to add the words "if one can afford them." But maybe someone will give me some of those L wide-angles.

 

[PhotoJim]

Not to mention that I can put my amazing Nikon glass on my FM2n and shoot in the cold without worry about battery power. Not to mention good high-eyepoint viewfinders that are friendly to eyeglass wearers. Not to mention better ergonomics. I am not exactly suffering with this Nikon gear.

The F6 has lots of focus points, but I find the five in the F100 and F5 to be just fine, thanks. All five are cross sensors too.

 

[keithwms]

As I feared Here we go on the Nikon v. Canon thing :rolleyes:

I simply find it hard to diss the Nikon lineup and at the same time consider the long list of accomplished Nikon photographers... people who certainly weren't financially constrained to Nikon.

Again, for somebody more interested in OOF rendering in limited DOF photographs, then perhaps 35mm isn't even the right format to consider. Honestly, this didn't occur to me until I started doing MF and LF. Just consider the circle of confusion and all will be clear You can drop a few grand on Leica or Zeiss, or... you can drop a few hundred on an MF or LF system and have far greater control of the OOF rendering. Your choice.

P.S. Pardon my acronyms, I am lazy. OOF=out of focus, DOF=depth of field....

 

[Excalibur2]

Maybe the question should be:-

What can a Nikon do that a Canon can't?

It's always been the person behind the camera that is most important anyway.....and if you were a salesman selling a F100 what would you say to convince me to buy one.

 

[PhotoJim]

The photographer is assuredly the most important part.

In this case, though, when the original poster already has a Nikon, I think the question ought to be: What can a Canon do that a Nikon can't?

He has a great camera; that's undisputed. The question is whether it's the camera he ought to have. And of course, that speaks to the system of lenses and accessories that are available to him.

Since the perfect system doesn't yet exist (and, for film, likely never will now), one has to balance the trade-offs. Nikon is superior to Canon in some regards. Canon is superior to Nikon in some regards. For me, unquestionably, Nikon is the better choice. The original poster has to decide the answer to that question for himself.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Well, for me, 35mm is for street photography and candids. HP5+ and f/2 or faster = love. I have friends with crop-sensor Canons, and they just feel awkward and unintuitive. The first time I picked up my F100 it melted into my hands, so to speak.

Also, AF points don't bother me. I just focus at the center and recompose, it seems to be faster. Alas, perception is just that, so it isn't necessarily the truth.

The Nikons and Canons really seem to be able to do the same things, but Nikon doesn't have a 24 or 35 mm f/1.4.

On the subject of something I've debated before, how is Canon's 16-35L II compared to Nikon's 17-35? And why isn't there an EF to F mount adapter? I would love to just use my Nikon body with Canon lenses. No aperture ring, I guess...

 

[2F/2F]

One of the great benefits of small format is lenses faster than f/2.8. Differences in the fast fixed-length lens area are definitely what made my choice of a Canon or Nikon system. If they matter in making your desired pix, then use them, regardless of brand. If you really need them that much to do what you want to do, get a Canon on which to mount them, and learn to live with the differences in bodies. Your lens will matter much more than your body, and you can easily adapt to any body if you use it enough. At first, I preferred the Nikon bodies, but now I highly prefer Canons after using one for a while and recently trying a Nikon again. I'll bet I would get used to a Nikon again if I had to. I agree that Nikon's current selection of fixed-length autofocus lenses is beat hands down by Canon's. That probably does not mean that you can't do what you need to do using new Nikon lenses.

So, the first order of business for you, I think, would be to rent a Canon body and some high-end glass for a week and see if it is worth it to make the switch.

 

[GeorgeDexter]

The feature set of the EOS 3 is similar to the F100 (which I love), but the quality of construction is nowhere near as good. It has a plastic body, not magnesium like the F100. I, too, find the EOS controls foreign and awkward, though one can learn to use anything if one tries hard enough. By the way, I understand your yen for fast wide primes, 35mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4, etc. I can't afford them anyway, so why worry. Besides, they're much larger and heavier than their slower cousins. I don't mind the size and weight sometimes, but the 85mm f1.2L feels like a bowling ball on the front of most EOS bodies. For my money, I'll shoot the f2.0 and 2.8 and be happy.

 

[Markok765]

I think the Nikon is more professional [metal rewind fork, manual rewind, color meter] than the canons.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

The Nikons and Canons really seem to be able to do the same things, but Nikon doesn't have a 24 or 35 mm f/1.4.

The real question is whether those super-fast lenses, which look great in catalogues, are actually able to form a decent image...
Leica & Zeiss have good fast wides, but some of the other brands discussed here are heavily marketing-oriented.

BTW, Nikon does have a non AF 35mm f/1.4

 

[SilverGlow]

Also, AF points don't bother me. I just focus at the center and recompose, it seems to be faster. Alas, perception is just that, so it isn't necessarily the truth.

Doing the Lock-Focus-Recompose dance is perhaps the worse thing one can do when shooting street and fast apertures.

It is far better to anticipate a shot, manually select the appropriate FP, wait for the moment, bring the view finder to your eye and release the shutter.

Recomposing when close and using a fast aperture will often effect critical focus, and in bad ways.

Relying solely on the center FP is to not use the camera as the maker intended. Doing this can through off matrix/evaluative metering, and of course screw up focus.

Find an online DOF calculator, and see for your self how razor thing the DOF can be when one shoots close and fast.

 

[SilverGlow]

The real question is whether those super-fast lenses, which look great in catalogues, are actually able to form a decent image...
Leica & Zeiss have good fast wides, but some of the other brands discussed here are heavily marketing-oriented.

BTW, Nikon does have a non AF 35mm f/1.4

So are the Leicas and Zeiss lenses (heavily marketed) because many of those are dogs, idealized, and romanticised. Conversely, and for example, the Canon 35L, 85L and 135L are no less great then the best German lenses, with the exception in some cases of edge sharpness, but this is a little nit.

And oftne the German lenses are say 5% better but cost 200% or more. Talk about marketing over objectivity. And to add insult, many of those German "fast" primes are NOT.

 

[SilverGlow]

The feature set of the EOS 3 is similar to the F100 (which I love), but the quality of construction is nowhere near as good. It has a plastic body, not magnesium like the F100. I, too, find the EOS controls foreign and awkward, though one can learn to use anything if one tries hard enough. By the way, I understand your yen for fast wide primes, 35mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4, etc. I can't afford them anyway, so why worry. Besides, they're much larger and heavier than their slower cousins. I don't mind the size and weight sometimes, but the 85mm f1.2L feels like a bowling ball on the front of most EOS bodies. For my money, I'll shoot the f2.0 and 2.8 and be happy.

Wrong. It has a magnesium body. Wrapped in reinforced polycarbonate, and it is sealed for moisture and dust. Is the F100? The Canon EOS-3 construction: magnesium alloy with glass-fiber reinforced polycarbonate

And of course the Canon feels foreign in your hands, as you are a Nikon shooter. I could say the same about a Nikon body too.

As to ergonomics, anyone can get use to either over time, and for this reason this should never be a point of decision.

Bowling ball weight? Exercise! ;-)

A good review: http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_eos3.htm

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

So are the Leicas and Zeiss lenses (heavily marketed) because many of those are dogs, idealized, and romanticised. Conversely, and for example, the Canon 35L, 85L and 135L are no less great then the best German lenses, with the exception in some cases of edge sharpness, but this is a little nit.

And oftne the German lenses are say 5% better but cost 200% or more. Talk about marketing over objectivity. And to add insult, many of those German "fast" primes are NOT.

Yep... All those Leica & Zeiss users buying up adapters like mad in order to use Canon wides...
;-)

I assume you've used those German dogs (shepherds?) yourself?
Anyway, I base my comments on having used hundreds(?) of lenses of dozens(?) of different brands, not on simple brand bigotry.

 

[2F/2F]

Doing the Lock-Focus-Recompose dance is perhaps the worse [sic] thing one can do when shooting street and fast apertures.

I highly disagree with this seemingly highly exaggerated statement. For me, I do not feel that it is a dance, and it is certainly faster and more accurate than using a rangefinder patch or manual focus with a center focusing aid. It is definitely faster than selecting a focusing point over the part of the composition that I want to focus for each shot. That is intended primarily for work where the camera is fixed in position, such as on a tripod, and actually slows you down when shooting handheld, IMO, because you are fiddling with buttons when you should be watching. Even on a tripod, however, I usually prefer to center focus and then recompose. You need to come off the idea that there is *a* right way to do things, and certainly off the idea that the way the camera manufacturer intended you to do things *is* this right way. I swear, I never ran into so many rules about photography from so many Popular Photography-reading Nobodies until I went onto the Internet.

 

[2F/2F]

So are the Leicas and Zeiss lenses (heavily marketed) because many of those are dogs, idealized, and romanticised. Conversely, and for example, the Canon 35L, 85L and 135L are no less great then the best German lenses, with the exception in some cases of edge sharpness, but this is a little nit.

And oftne the German lenses are say 5% better but cost 200% or more. Talk about marketing over objectivity. And to add insult, many of those German "fast" primes are NOT.

I dare you to find me any nice Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, etc. lens that is truly a "dog". Romanticized, yes (as is any piece of equipment by some idiot somewhere out there)...but not a "dog". Photographers are the limiting factor more than anything else; the true curs about which we should be worrying, as opposed to the glass. My favorite antique lenses, including my Summar and Summitar, would be considered "dogs" when put through their paces by a technocrat. I understand your objection to the original statement by Rollei Nut, but COME ON!

As for arguing over which brand is technically better wide open...come on. If you are shooting wide open in low light, you should be happy enough to get *any* picture at all. Exposure is the issue far more than various aberrations, softness, etc. I wonder how many of the people arguing these technical points have routinely printed pix for real-world applications that they shoot with the equipment they argue about, not to mention whether or not they actually own or have used the stuff. Go spend some time shooting on deadline for a daily publication, or any publication for that matter, then come back and argue about lens aberrations using your published litho prints as examples. People for whom you are shooting are looking at the pic, not at the aberrations. Get real, folks. All you need is something that gets the shot. If you are in a situation where f/1.2 vs. f/1.4 matters (which I thoroughly understand), then you have other concerns than what brand took the best pix of a testing chart on some Joe-Internet's Webpage, yadda yadda....It can be FUN and INTERESTING to discuss, but only as long as we admit that this discussion is for entertainment only and that it really doesn't practically matter.

 

[Tim Gray]

I agree. When I shoot on my Canon, I always do focus and recompose. I either lock the metering or am doing manual metering anyway, so I don't worry about my exposure being thrown off. I only move the focus point if I have plenty of time to do so.

Maybe Nikon is more professional, but the 1V... damn. It's a nice camera.

Canon makes some really nice lenses. Really nice. Their telephotos seem to me to be their real strength. Though the 35L is a great lens (this is splitting hairs here), I've not seen anything that makes me think its *better* than a Leica 35 Summilux ASPH. Other than AF Corner sharpness, sometimes busy bokeh, SIZE, it falls behind. But, those are little things, with the exception of the size, and don't get in the way of great photography. I've found that I can shoot my RF lenses wide open with little degradation, with the exception of a 50's Nikkor. That's not true with my Canon wide/normal primes.

 

[white.elephant]

I focus and recompose all the time, whether I'm shooting a manual focus camera or an auto focus. Like Tim, I may lock the meter OR I'm shooting pre-metered, depending. Whether focus or exposure, I have yet to meet a camera that always anticipated what I wanted. And the other thing here is that every lens 'draws' differently. My FD 35mm f/2 just draws differently than my Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon. I don't own the Canon 35mm 1.4 L, and if I did, I'd bet that if would draw in yet a third way. Lots of pro images over many years were taken with that 30-year-old FD 35mm design, and I'd bet no one looked at one of those images and said "Oy, what a crappy lens!"

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah I should clarify - the Canon lenses, and all the others, are plenty good enough. I do think some of the Leica designs, for example, are better, but does any one really need better? No. I like the Canon 28/1.8 which is usually given crap online, but its fast, small, and the right focal length.

 

[mcd]

Nikon needs to update the auto focus screw drive prime lenses to afs, and they all shouldn't be G lenses either. While there is nothing wrong with the image quality, the mechanics of the current screw focus lenses are primitive and noisy. Faster primes would be great too, but they will be unaffordable.