canon 1v vs canon eos-3
-
A
- Thread starter tavis
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Build quality (better on the 1V) and weathersealing (only on the 1V). The 1V also has the higher max frame rate, but barely. The 1V can export shooting data to a computer via a special Canon cable and software package, but they are no longer available and apparently only 14 were made. 
The 1V is still in production (or old stock is available) and can be serviced by Canon. The 3 is no longer in production and I don't think Canon supports it. The 3 has the Eye-control feature which lets your eye choose the focus point. It's pretty neat and works well. The 1V does not have this ability.
Only you can decide if the features of the 1V are worth twice the price. My vote is yes. I own a 1V, a 1N, and a 3, and the 1V is my favorite.
The 1V is still in production (or old stock is available) and can be serviced by Canon. The 3 is no longer in production and I don't think Canon supports it. The 3 has the Eye-control feature which lets your eye choose the focus point. It's pretty neat and works well. The 1V does not have this ability.Only you can decide if the features of the 1V are worth twice the price. My vote is yes. I own a 1V, a 1N, and a 3, and the 1V is my favorite.
1V is the best but 1N is not far behind and as such the best value. Only get one of these cameras if you're insistent on using EOS lenses otherwise get an FD mount or something else. IMO autofocus and film just don't go together.
One huge factor for me that keeps the 1N at home a lot is that the 1N doesn't have high-speed flash sync. Both the EOS-3 and 1V have it. It's a lifesaver on sunny days when you need some fill flash.
1V = "better camera"
3 = "better value" (probably the biggest bang for your buck in an AF SLR on the used market)
They both have the same 45-point focusing area. Whether or not the computer programs that drive it are the same, I do not know, but they seem comparable in speed and accuracy (i.e., faster than you will ever need, and inaccurate unless you take decisive manual control of the AF system, like all auto focus).
The 3 has ECF, which works fairly well in some situations, but I would not consider a decision maker. It sounds cool, but it is pretty primitive.
The 3 does have weather sealing, though not the same weather sealing as the 1V (at least to my knowledge).
Of course Canon still "supports" the EOS 3! They only stopped making it a short time ago.
Whether or not you are shooting film should not affect whether or not you need/want autofocus. Your subject will determine that.
With EOS 3s priced the way they are, I would only get a 1V if I was really going to beat the hell out of the camera day-in-day-out (or if it happened to come along for a song).
My order of preference with the entire 1 and 3 series film cameras, cost aside:
1V
3
1N (and 1N RS)
1
I really do not like the 1 and 1N very much compared to the later two.
This is a brief and helpful page: http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?CanonEOS3.html~mainFrame
She sums up the differences as follows:
"Why get the professional EOS-1v instead of the EOS-3?
* Bragging rights
* Finder eye-piece shutter (for macro or "hail-mary" shots)
* Even better sealed against dirt/water intrustion
* Don't have to worry about inconsistent eye-control-focus (ECF)
* Even faster frame rates
* Won't fog the very bottom of IR film frames
* Heavier
* Bragging rights
Now that the EOS-1D Mark II is out, people who more money than brains have something else to worry about."
3 = "better value" (probably the biggest bang for your buck in an AF SLR on the used market)
They both have the same 45-point focusing area. Whether or not the computer programs that drive it are the same, I do not know, but they seem comparable in speed and accuracy (i.e., faster than you will ever need, and inaccurate unless you take decisive manual control of the AF system, like all auto focus).
The 3 has ECF, which works fairly well in some situations, but I would not consider a decision maker. It sounds cool, but it is pretty primitive.
The 3 does have weather sealing, though not the same weather sealing as the 1V (at least to my knowledge).
Of course Canon still "supports" the EOS 3! They only stopped making it a short time ago.
Whether or not you are shooting film should not affect whether or not you need/want autofocus. Your subject will determine that.
With EOS 3s priced the way they are, I would only get a 1V if I was really going to beat the hell out of the camera day-in-day-out (or if it happened to come along for a song).
My order of preference with the entire 1 and 3 series film cameras, cost aside:
1V
3
1N (and 1N RS)
1
I really do not like the 1 and 1N very much compared to the later two.
This is a brief and helpful page: http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?CanonEOS3.html~mainFrame
She sums up the differences as follows:
"Why get the professional EOS-1v instead of the EOS-3?
* Bragging rights
* Finder eye-piece shutter (for macro or "hail-mary" shots)
* Even better sealed against dirt/water intrustion
* Don't have to worry about inconsistent eye-control-focus (ECF)
* Even faster frame rates
* Won't fog the very bottom of IR film frames
* Heavier
* Bragging rights
Now that the EOS-1D Mark II is out, people who more money than brains have something else to worry about."
Last edited by a moderator:
Build quality (better on the 1V) and weathersealing (only on the 1V). The 1V also has the higher max frame rate, but barely. The 1V can export shooting data to a computer via a special Canon cable and software package, but they are no longer available and apparently only 14 were made.
Only you can decide if the features of the 1V are worth twice the price. My vote is yes. I own a 1V, a 1N, and a 3, and the 1V is my favorite.
Not true about weather sealing and the EOS 3....the EOS 3 does have weather sealing too, just not as robust as the 1V.
Also, the EOS 3 is still serviceable by Canon USA. Canon still supports it too.
In addition, the 1V can be used to shoot infrared film; the EOS 3 can't be used for this purpose.
The best EOS body ever produced is the 1V, and I have two of those bodies, and three EOS 3 bodies. The 1V is worth the extra $$ IMHO, but the EOS 3 is no slouch.
I love the Eye-Control-Focus Point selection on the EOS 3...it works great....frankly, the only EOS film bodies to own these days are the ones that support E-TTL, and those are just the EOS 3 and the EOS 1v as far as I know....I think the later Rebels/Elans do too.
Which ever EOS body you get, I strongly advise you get the battery grip too...there are three types that fit both bodies...they hold AA batteries, which will be available long after the CR5S battery stops being made...
I'd pass over the 1N and 1 because (1) they don't work with E-TTL flash logic, and (2) the flash sync speed is slower then 1/250s.
Last edited by a moderator:
I venture to suggest consider passing up either camera and go for the 1N.
The 1N is still in demand for its simplicity; certainly, that's its strongest point compared to the excess of technology on the 1V (a quite heavy machine) and EOS 3 (as pointed out, uses the same IR sprocket pacing technology as the EOS 5, 50/50e et all, so no infra-red film capability).
Not only are you paying double, but there is a very significant weight penalty. For bushwalking and travelling, this is something you have to consider, around 945gm or so for the 1V. Then add a lens. Or two. And...
A flash sync of 1/200 on the 1N vs 1/250 is quite satisfactory for the vast majority of work if people would come to grips with photography at a professional, well-educated level. That means also skipping briskly over such novelties as eye control focus. Most of us remember how "clever" that was on the blighty EOS 5 (1994), then "improved" on the EOS 50/50E (1996), but in practice nothing but a distraction from the serious business of taking care of the scene you are looking at.
I do second the remark to install a grip/drive to allow AA batteries over the inherently less robust and expensive 2CR5 things (lithium AA batteries are good for their light weight though not all drives will allow lithium batteries to be used).
The 1N is still in demand for its simplicity; certainly, that's its strongest point compared to the excess of technology on the 1V (a quite heavy machine) and EOS 3 (as pointed out, uses the same IR sprocket pacing technology as the EOS 5, 50/50e et all, so no infra-red film capability).
Not only are you paying double, but there is a very significant weight penalty. For bushwalking and travelling, this is something you have to consider, around 945gm or so for the 1V. Then add a lens. Or two. And...
A flash sync of 1/200 on the 1N vs 1/250 is quite satisfactory for the vast majority of work if people would come to grips with photography at a professional, well-educated level. That means also skipping briskly over such novelties as eye control focus. Most of us remember how "clever" that was on the blighty EOS 5 (1994), then "improved" on the EOS 50/50E (1996), but in practice nothing but a distraction from the serious business of taking care of the scene you are looking at.
I do second the remark to install a grip/drive to allow AA batteries over the inherently less robust and expensive 2CR5 things (lithium AA batteries are good for their light weight though not all drives will allow lithium batteries to be used).
It is important for the OP to understand that ECF should really be called ECFPS: Eye-Control Focus Point Selection. All it is supposed to do is select a focus point, just like pressing the focus point selection button and then turning the dials. Additionally, even in AI Servo mode, it holds that focus point until you release the AF command again. It will not change points if you keep the AF command held down, and then look at a different AF point.
So, ALL IT IS is a way to select a focus point. I think much of the disparaging commentary about it (though not yours, Poisson) come from ignorance of what the feature is actually supposed to do, unrealistic expectations of it, not reading the directions, failing to constantly calibrate in different lighting situations, etc. In short, being a dumb idiot causes people to call their camera a dumb idiot.
Additionally:
1. The ECF can only select small "bunches" of points, not an individual point. Within a selected "bunch", the computer decides which individual point to select.
2. Therefore, it works more accurately for selecting individual points if you reduce the number of used focusing points to 11
If it actually worked 100% reliably/controllably, it would be an endlessly helpful feature.
The idea is brilliant. It takes away one of the major drawbacks of using AF in most situations (and by AF I mean single-point AF, as automatic point selection is entirely useless and unreliable, and worse than manual focus IMHO): that you must either focus/recompose, or fiddle about with a button and dials to select the desired focusing point.
As I said in my first post in the thread, "The 3 has ECF, which works fairly well in some situations, but I would not consider a decision maker. It sounds cool, but it is pretty primitive."
In short, it is a great idea, but poorly-implemented feature that is worth using in some situations. I am just sad that they never bothered to refine it. My guess is that the technology exists to make it better, but that it would be expensive, and that feedback on it from testers and consumers was poor.
This is why I called the system "pretty primitive".
Do I use it? YES. When I have time to fix it if it makes a mistake.
Do I rely on it in a fast-paced situation? NO. I focus/recompose with the center point.
I also calibrate it every time I pick up the camera, and usually a couple of times. I use channel 1 for my right eye and channel 2 for my left. The calibration is cumulative, and doing it often makes an enormous difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's very difficult (likely, impossible) to refine the non-linear behaviour of the human eye, which is perhaps why Canon did not take ECF any further. True, they did well in refining ECF from the blighty EOS 5 to the 50/50E (I used both models for 8 years during Degree studies).
As time went on, I found (on the EOS 5 and 50/50E cameras) that it was making me look where I did not want to look. To this day, much of my interest is not central to the viewfinder but around the viewfinder. The 50/50E is still in wide use amongst students (APUGers, too!), a couple of students I've networked with recently do not use ECF, though very aware of its presence.
ECF is a complication in specific circumstances e.g. perspective control lenses (true, you can turn ECF off). As an example, Canon's TS-E lenses require critical focus (at least the MF-models do). Often, this focus is away from the central area of 5 points (on the 1N or the 45 on the 1V/3 (the latter which does not have 100% viewfinder coverage is a hindrance). I have seen it demonstrated that using a TS-E lens on the 1V (like the 1N) with focusing points superimposed in red will cause 'twitch-arraying' of multiple points as tilt (especially) is introduced — the camera literally has no idea where to focus (so focusing is done extra-visually). Even on the 1N, the frantic flickering of points (any number) as the tilt (or shift) is brought in can be extremely annoying. I mention this from professional experience. It would be good to have a little button (just one button, rather than a sequence) to instantly switch off superimposition of points during technical focusing — when AF is also a hindrance.
Of course the 1V is very weather proof, if that's a bragging point. But do you actually shoot your masterpieces in torrential rain? Well, I do (not actually planned by choice!) and I'll tell you it's just patently bloody awful with everything else to concentrate on — where my feet are, getting saturated and cold, rain-speckled lens — eugh and ugh—!)
. Just because a camera is weather proof doesn't mean you should blithely allow it to remain wet.
Beware of weights for Canon's top guns. To give you some idea of baseline weight, an EOS 1V is around 945gm. My EOS 1N is 2.23kg with PDBE1, TS-E24L (I prefer the 17-40mm for a bit lighter load)! Now add your fav. optic to the 1V and do the math.
Suggest you run your eyes and fingers over several well-kept curvaceous bodies (we are speaking about cameras, please!) and let the mind decide, but not the heart.
As time went on, I found (on the EOS 5 and 50/50E cameras) that it was making me look where I did not want to look. To this day, much of my interest is not central to the viewfinder but around the viewfinder. The 50/50E is still in wide use amongst students (APUGers, too!), a couple of students I've networked with recently do not use ECF, though very aware of its presence.
ECF is a complication in specific circumstances e.g. perspective control lenses (true, you can turn ECF off). As an example, Canon's TS-E lenses require critical focus (at least the MF-models do). Often, this focus is away from the central area of 5 points (on the 1N or the 45 on the 1V/3 (the latter which does not have 100% viewfinder coverage is a hindrance). I have seen it demonstrated that using a TS-E lens on the 1V (like the 1N) with focusing points superimposed in red will cause 'twitch-arraying' of multiple points as tilt (especially) is introduced — the camera literally has no idea where to focus (so focusing is done extra-visually). Even on the 1N, the frantic flickering of points (any number) as the tilt (or shift) is brought in can be extremely annoying. I mention this from professional experience. It would be good to have a little button (just one button, rather than a sequence) to instantly switch off superimposition of points during technical focusing — when AF is also a hindrance.
Of course the 1V is very weather proof, if that's a bragging point. But do you actually shoot your masterpieces in torrential rain? Well, I do (not actually planned by choice!) and I'll tell you it's just patently bloody awful with everything else to concentrate on — where my feet are, getting saturated and cold, rain-speckled lens — eugh and ugh—!)
. Just because a camera is weather proof doesn't mean you should blithely allow it to remain wet.Beware of weights for Canon's top guns. To give you some idea of baseline weight, an EOS 1V is around 945gm. My EOS 1N is 2.23kg with PDBE1, TS-E24L (I prefer the 17-40mm for a bit lighter load)! Now add your fav. optic to the 1V and do the math.
Suggest you run your eyes and fingers over several well-kept curvaceous bodies (we are speaking about cameras, please!) and let the mind decide, but not the heart.Reading your post, perhaps another problem with ECF is that people assume it should be used 100% of the time, and that it is a total AF solution for perfect results all the time. (This falls into my "unrealistic expectations" category.) It is nothing but a tool; a feature. It has an on/off switch for a reason: to use it when you want to, and not use it when you do not want to.
That's very true.
Professional experience will sort out what you definitely need and make most use of as opposed to what camera manufacturers think you will find useful. There are some beautiful cameras out there and I believe individuals should come to grips with them and honestly appraise themselves and the camera.
Karen Nakamura is an excellent, impartial reviewer with and interest in deafness and disability in society — something I share in common. Her photoethnographic writing is an interesting, factual and at times amusing aside from her extremely well-researched professorial engagements and I follow both her fields of endeavour keenly.
Professional experience will sort out what you definitely need and make most use of as opposed to what camera manufacturers think you will find useful. There are some beautiful cameras out there and I believe individuals should come to grips with them and honestly appraise themselves and the camera.
Karen Nakamura is an excellent, impartial reviewer with and interest in deafness and disability in society — something I share in common. Her photoethnographic writing is an interesting, factual and at times amusing aside from her extremely well-researched professorial engagements and I follow both her fields of endeavour keenly.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 10
- Format
- 35mm RF
If you need the speed of the 1V, then buy the 1V. Personally, I didn't, so I used the EOS 3 for years. Oddly, I paired it with an Elan 7E, for quiet situations (its shutter and mirror slap are VERY quiet).
I will add though, that the Eye Control (ECF) was used at least 85% of the time on both cameras. I found it reliable, and quick, and I wear glasses... which is normally something say does not work with ECF. It did work fine.
Actually, the drop of ECF was why I left canon when I went digital. It was the make or break feature for canon as far as I was concerned. Once it was out... I decided I wanted a nice weathersealed camera the size (or smaller) than the EOS 3.
If I went back to Canon film bodies today, I would rebuy the same pair of models.
I will add though, that the Eye Control (ECF) was used at least 85% of the time on both cameras. I found it reliable, and quick, and I wear glasses... which is normally something say does not work with ECF. It did work fine.
Actually, the drop of ECF was why I left canon when I went digital. It was the make or break feature for canon as far as I was concerned. Once it was out... I decided I wanted a nice weathersealed camera the size (or smaller) than the EOS 3.
If I went back to Canon film bodies today, I would rebuy the same pair of models.
A lot of good points above. 3 is the best buy, 1V is the 'best' camera. I bought a 1V a couple years ago. Honestly, at the price these things are going for, why not buy the best? On ebay, it looks like 1Vs are going for $400-600. I think the 3 is going for around $200-300. Be aware that the NiCad batteries and charger for the power drive are expensive. About $75-100 for a battery and anywhere from $100-300 for a charger. So if you need to hit 10 fps for some reason, budget in some extra money.
The 1V certainly is heavier, but I have lighter cameras. I use it for shooting concerts (including rough and tumble ones where I'm in the crowd), shooting in poor weather, etc. I was out in one of the blizzards that hit the East Coast this year for a couple hours. I'm sure many cameras would have been fine in the weather, but with the 1V, I just didn't worry about the camera at all.
My thinking as of a couple years ago: I'm young(ish). I wanted to start shooting film. Who knew how long some of these emulsions will be around. I managed to get in on the tail end of HIE and Kodachrome. I wanted to shoot film while it was still around with the best I could afford. The extra $300 at the time for the 1V was well spent. Hopefully film (and batteries and paper and enlarger bulbs) will be around for a long, long time so I never have to go back to digital
The 1V certainly is heavier, but I have lighter cameras. I use it for shooting concerts (including rough and tumble ones where I'm in the crowd), shooting in poor weather, etc. I was out in one of the blizzards that hit the East Coast this year for a couple hours. I'm sure many cameras would have been fine in the weather, but with the 1V, I just didn't worry about the camera at all.
My thinking as of a couple years ago: I'm young(ish). I wanted to start shooting film. Who knew how long some of these emulsions will be around. I managed to get in on the tail end of HIE and Kodachrome. I wanted to shoot film while it was still around with the best I could afford. The extra $300 at the time for the 1V was well spent. Hopefully film (and batteries and paper and enlarger bulbs) will be around for a long, long time so I never have to go back to digital
I am amused at this talk of the 1V being "heavy". Sure it is heavier then the 3 but not so much as to make an issue of it. Weight should not even be in the equation, frankly. I have all the L zooms, and all the L primes up to 200mm and with any of them attached, weight is not a problem, not even on a 12 mile hike in the woods. In addition, a heavier camera makes for a a more stable hand held camera...weight actually works in your favor.
As to the flash sync differences, 1/250s vs 1/200 may not seem like a big difference but it all helps. To suggest that a "real pro" would not consider such things is just arrogance. I would go with the faster flash sync.
Lastly, I would stay clear of any and all EOS film bodies that don't use the E-TTL logic...this is a BIG deal....E-TTL is fantastic and it assists the photographer in fantastic ways.
Since used 1v cameras are a steal on ebay, Craigslist, why not get the best? It will last a lifetime and with the grip you'll always have available AA batteries.
The Eye-Control focus is not a gimmick, nor is it a feature shyied away from by pros, as has been suggested. The truth is it works for many, not for all because of the geometry of our eyes....I have friends that can never get it to work, and I know people like me that get it to work 100% of the time....what helps a professional better then the ability to use eye control to manually pick and choose the appropriate focus point? If it doesn't work for you, don't assume it does not work for others. This feature is great because it encourages the shooter to NOT Lock-Focus-Recompose, which when shooting fast and close can effect critical focus and metering too. With this feature I never recompose after locking focus....of course you don't need this feature to prevent the recompose, but this feature really helps and it allows you to focus on composing more and less about focus points....you just look at the part of the frame yout want to focus on and bang it locks there...fantastic.
As to the flash sync differences, 1/250s vs 1/200 may not seem like a big difference but it all helps. To suggest that a "real pro" would not consider such things is just arrogance. I would go with the faster flash sync.
Lastly, I would stay clear of any and all EOS film bodies that don't use the E-TTL logic...this is a BIG deal....E-TTL is fantastic and it assists the photographer in fantastic ways.
Since used 1v cameras are a steal on ebay, Craigslist, why not get the best? It will last a lifetime and with the grip you'll always have available AA batteries.
The Eye-Control focus is not a gimmick, nor is it a feature shyied away from by pros, as has been suggested. The truth is it works for many, not for all because of the geometry of our eyes....I have friends that can never get it to work, and I know people like me that get it to work 100% of the time....what helps a professional better then the ability to use eye control to manually pick and choose the appropriate focus point? If it doesn't work for you, don't assume it does not work for others. This feature is great because it encourages the shooter to NOT Lock-Focus-Recompose, which when shooting fast and close can effect critical focus and metering too. With this feature I never recompose after locking focus....of course you don't need this feature to prevent the recompose, but this feature really helps and it allows you to focus on composing more and less about focus points....you just look at the part of the frame yout want to focus on and bang it locks there...fantastic.
I *have* the body and I can tell you straight up that the 1V is noticeably heavier than either my F3 or Leica M4 due to containing electronics and machinery the others don't have to include. The camera *is* heavy.
I'll say that for automated systems, it's definitely heading down the right road, but the issue is that automated systems don't typically agree with compositional choices - and for the life of me I can't see why neither Canon nor Nikon have made it easy to just disable AF zones (i.e. center). Perhaps they've integrated this feature by now, but it seems like low hanging fruit.
However, since I do *not* shoot sports, manual focus ends up being *just as fast* once one accounts for screwing around with AF points to get AF to do what you want it to do.
The fact is, for 95% of non-fast-moving objects one doesn't really need auto-focus nor the weight of the lenses and bodies that come with it. If you choose to argue that, then back it up with photographic output.
There has never been a 35mm SLR ever made that is so heavy that it is worth bringing up as a drawback, IMHO.
Now, if you are talking about an old Nikon or Canon with the big motor drives, then yes. Not something you want to carry around every day for no good reason...but no 35mm SLR is what I would call "heavy." Especially not any modern camera.
Now, if you are talking about an old Nikon or Canon with the big motor drives, then yes. Not something you want to carry around every day for no good reason...but no 35mm SLR is what I would call "heavy." Especially not any modern camera.
The problem with an AF camera is that, even if you turn off the auto-focus, your'e left with a viewfinder and screen which aren't optimised for manual focus.
My favorite cameras are those which make manual focusing a joy, even in bad light or with slow lenses...
Clayne, I never wrote that the 1V wasn't heavier then the 3...we agree that it is, but a lot heavier? No. Will the difference in weight ever be an issue? No.
What do you mean that automatic choices don't typically agree with compositional choices? All compositional choices for all cameras are in fact manual...it's up to the photographer. Since when does one leave compositional choices to the camera? If you're referring to focus points, one can manually pick and choose the appropriate FP manually, fast, easily. And with the 3's and 1v's 45 focus points, the photographer has several choices that will support his vision of what he wants in the composition.
How is photographic output going to prove anything? :confused:
AF is a fanstastic tool that can benefit a pro, and anyone that is a seasoned shooter. AF means the camera is there to assist the photographer and support his vision, not the other way around. And for example, when shooting a fast paced wedding, shooting AF means a lot faster and more accurate focusing then if done manually.
I miss ECF on my nikons. I loved the feature and quite frankly it did work 100% of the time for me.
I found ECF to work quite reliably, though I don't use it often. I have the 1, 1N, 1N-RS, 1V and 3. I have never liked the 1, can't really tell you why; it has been my loaner camera for the last few years, and I'm thinking of unloading it. The 1N is a sentimental favorite that I can't bear to part with but use only rarely. The 1N-RS is a fabulous camera that, because if its bulk, doesn't get used at all; the EOS RT is an awfully nice camera, does some of the same things, and is much lighter. The 1V and 3 get the most use, and it's hard to choose between them. For price, pick the 3. Then get an RT for the pellicle mirror.
I should mention that all of these cameras can take a focusing screen optimized for manual focusing. I think I have one in the 1N, but I don't recall which screen it is. EC-A or EC-B.
I should mention that all of these cameras can take a focusing screen optimized for manual focusing. I think I have one in the 1N, but I don't recall which screen it is. EC-A or EC-B.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fred, the EOS 1 was the first in the pro-series line up and the first direct EF descendent from the successful FD T90 body. It was a breathtakingly good start. It found instant acclaim but Canon was beavering away on refinement less than 8 months after it's release (in 1989), working toward the 1N release in 1994 (at that time, a 1N body cost more than $3,000). The elderly 1 is still in wide use among travellers looking for reliability and robustness, even though the 1 is considerably less endowed than its brethren 1N / RS et al. Like legions of others, I won't part with my 1N+PDBE1) for all the tea in China!!
The 1N is a sweet camera, but I have so many others that none of them ever get a proper workout. I have to say, though, that the only thing the original 1 has over the others is it has a sinister look to it; it's very cool.
Oh I love that description, "...that the only thing the original 1 has over the others is it has a sinister look to it; it's very cool" Yes it sure is.
But nothing really changed after the 1. I still get intrigued interjections from passers-by in the bush who have "never seen a camera like that [1N] before... Oh, it's a film camera!?", and similar comments I can recall were also common when I used the Canon T90 — every model Canon released forward of that had eve more curves! Remember all these lush, curvaceous FD and EOS bodies were designed by an Italian...!
But nothing really changed after the 1. I still get intrigued interjections from passers-by in the bush who have "never seen a camera like that [1N] before... Oh, it's a film camera!?", and similar comments I can recall were also common when I used the Canon T90 — every model Canon released forward of that had eve more curves! Remember all these lush, curvaceous FD and EOS bodies were designed by an Italian...!
The thing I don't like about ECF on my EOS 3 is the sensor/whatever... that is directly inside the viewfinder eyepiece. I assume this is what detects where your pupil is looking on the focussing screen .
This sensor tends to reduce the contrast through the viewfinder.
Anyone else notice this?
At first I thought the coating was bad on my eyepiece/slip in diopter.
This sensor tends to reduce the contrast through the viewfinder.
Anyone else notice this?
At first I thought the coating was bad on my eyepiece/slip in diopter.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |