Canon EOS 1n vs EOS 3 or EOS 1?

[smallfooties]

Hi guys, i'm new to this forum so i don't know if i have posted this in the right section.
I've been meaning to get either one of these cameras but not sure which is better? I've looked at the specs and they look pretty similar. I have a 400d and was wondering if my lenses will be able to fit on these bodies? I have a nifty fifity and a kit 18 - 55. I will soon be acquiring either a sigma 105 or a tamron 90 too.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks guys.

 

[illumiquest]

The 3 is a more modern camera with better auto focus. The 1's have a slightly better viewfinder and would probably take more of a hit if you're looking for something to drop. Photo.net has a pretty decent comparison of the three

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00KNJi

 

[Shangheye]

I own the 1n and it is built like a brick. As mentioned above it also offers a 100% viewfinder. I recommend it. K

 

[PhotoJim]

Nikon F5.

Seriously, although I am a Nikon shooter, buy the best camera you can reasonably afford. The 1V has a major performance upgrade over the other two in terms of motor drive and autofocus speed, so if the prices are reasonable, get one. I picked up my F5 (Nikon's cousin to the 1V) for around $400 US and it's worth every penny.

If the 1V is too expensive, then you have to decide between the build quality of the 1 or 1N and the faster speed of the 3. (I use my F100 - analog to the 3 - more than I use my F4 - analog to the 1 - but this will depend on your particular circumstances.)

 

[WetMogwai]

EF lenses will work fine. Don't put the 18-55 on a full frame camera, film or digital. EF-S lenses can break the reflex mirror.

 

[2F/2F]

Any one of them, though I favor the 3 for its AF, the controls, and the price. I had been looking for years, and finally just got one. For me, it is a special-purpose camera, as most of the time I use my oldies but goodies. However, I could not be happier with the 3, for what I wanted it for.

Next on the list for me would be the 1N.

I do not like the 1 at all, unless used with manual focus...and at that point, why use it at all?

 

[smallfooties]

Yes I will have to look at affordability. Anybody know what's a reasonable price? Honestly I'm not willing to pay more than 200-300... I'm from Australia so dunno if it's cheaper here or USA?

 

[TheSohnly]

you sound like you are from 4chan...ugh...
anyway...your 18-55 kit lens -should- work from 24mm-55mm and the 50mm will work on film or FX digital.

Yes I will have to look at affordability. Anybody know what's a reasonable price? Honestly I'm not willing to pay more than 200-300... I'm from Australia so dunno if it's cheaper here or USA?

Affordability and photography do not go hand in hand. If you are looking for "something affordable", then stay with digital and get the 55-200 VR to go with your 18-55 lens and just start shooting.

reasonable prices can be found at adorama, B&H, KEH, and flebay.

There is NO easy answer to your question.

Digital photography and film photography are NOT similar. A film camera is a light-tight box that you put film in - there are no sensors, instant gratification, or (most of the time) easy modes. There are no megapixels to fawn over. You can't just change ISO on the fly and have the image automatically come out okay.

I'm gonna forgo a huge essay and just tell you:
You don't want an EOS 1, 1v/1v-HS, 1n, or 3; you will probably want an EOS 7, 7N, 7NE, or EOS 5/A2. They are pretty cheap and will give you the exact options you want.

 

[smallfooties]

Any one of them, though I favor the 3 for its AF, the controls, and the price. I had been looking for years, and finally just got one. For me, it is a special-purpose camera, as most of the time I use my oldies but goodies. However, I could not be happier with the 3, for what I wanted it for.

Next on the list for me would be the 1N.

I do not like the 1 at all, unless used with manual focus...and at that point, why use it at all?

I do a lot of street and still life photography... I also like to do macro... I use manual focus all the time...

 

[Andy38]

I also think the Eos Elan7/33 is a good choice, but its viewfinder isn't the best.
The Eos 5/A2 is older and command dial may be easily broken if you don't care; it's a problem with this camera ; but its viewfinder is excellent.
I also have a 3 but I don't use it : it has not internal dioptric adjustment and I don't need 45 focusing points...

If you only use manual focus, you'll prefer the 1N, with a better viewfinder.

 

[eng1er]

I own all three of those cameras. They are all excellent choices. I bought my EOS 1 new in 1991 and it is still my go-to SLR. It's only been in the shop once (because it fell over on an unsteady tripod onto concrete which caused a tiny crack in the top body piece, but NO other damage). I even fell down a flight of concrete stairs with it once that left only a scuff. A real tank.

A couple years ago, when the less-enlightened began dumping film cameras onto the used market, I picked up some "back up" bodies on eBay. An EOS 3 with booster and a roll count less than 50 for $250 and a barely used 1v and booster for about $350. As I'm sure is true with most of the gearheads among us, the flocking to digital has had one positive effect: I can now afford much of the equipment I spent my youth drooling over in the back of Shutterbug magazine. If only EF lenses and flashes saw the same price drop...

 

[2F/2F]

I do a lot of street and still life photography... I also like to do macro... I use manual focus all the time...

Honestly, hearing this, I think an old (pre 1976 or so) SLR will be your better option. I'd go for a Nikon, personally, because they are a top-end system with 8 billion components (bellows, finders, lenses, etc.), and you can adapt the lenses to your EOS cameras, or use them on later Nikons.

However, I believe you have made your choice because you are already using Canon EF lenses.

Also, I believe you will find that your kit lens is actually an EF-S lens, not an EF lens, so it is designed for APS-C format only, not for 135 format.

IMHO, an AF SLR is not the way to go if you will not be using autofocus. They are much harder to use for MF than a camera that was designed for such.

 

[SilverGlow]

The 3 is a more modern camera with better auto focus. The 1's have a slightly better viewfinder and would probably take more of a hit if you're looking for something to drop. Photo.net has a pretty decent comparison of the three

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00KNJi

Sorry but you are very wrong!

There are several 1 models, and the most modern, the best EOS is not the 3 but the 1V. The 1V was the last pro EOS body created by Canon.

 

[2F/2F]

Sorry but you are very wrong!

There are several 1 models, and the most modern, the best EOS is not the 3 but the 1V. The 1V was the last pro EOS body created by Canon.

I believe he was referring to THE 1. The EOS 1. EOS 1s, plural, meaning all EOS 1s, not all EOS 1 Series cameras (which would include 1, 1N, 1NRS, 1V, and all the digitals). Maybe? Maybe not? That is the way I read it, at any rate.

Your statement that there are several 1 models is very wrong. () There are several EOS 1 Series models, but not several plain-ol' EOS 1 models.

 

[SilverGlow]

I believe he was referring to THE 1. The EOS 1. EOS 1s, plural, meaning all EOS 1s, not all EOS 1 Series cameras. Maybe? Maybe not?

Your statement that there are several 1 models is very wrong. There are several EOS 1 Series models, but not several plain-ol' EOS 1 models.

Yes, there are several 1 models, sorry 2F/2F but I stand by what I wrote...there are the 1, the 1S, the 1N, the 1HS, the 1V and perhaps others....they are all 1 series models; Canon's way of updating the 1 without using the same exact name.....perhaps our difference is symantics... ;-)

 

[2F/2F]

No there are several 1 models, sorry 2F/2F but I stand by what I wrote...there are the 1, the 1S, the 1N, the 1HS, the 1V and perhaps others....they are all 1 series models; Canon's way of updating the 1 without using the same exact name.....perhaps our difference is symantics... ;-)

All EOS 1s are EOS 1 Series cameras.

Not all EOS 1 Series cameras are EOS 1s.

The EOS 1 is a model of camera in the EOS 1 Series. It was the first in the series.

The 1N followed. Then the 1V. The 1N and 1V each had minor variations, such as 1N-RS or 1V-HS. A 1V-HS was simply a 1V sold with a high-speed motor drive already attached, while the 1N-RS was basically an EOS version of the special high-speed F-1 from the early '70s. Both the high-speed F-1 and the 1N-RS had pellicle mirrors, which allowed for their high frame rate. (Though the F-1 shot 14 FPS, while the 1N-RS shot 10 or so.)

So, the OP is not considering the 1V. Only the 1, the 1N, and the 3.

I haven't heard of the EOS 1S or EOS 1HS.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

All EOS 1s are EOS 1 Series cameras.

Not all EOS 1 Series cameras are EOS 1s.

The EOS 1 is a model of camera in the EOS 1 Series (the first in the series).

I haven't heard of the EOS 1S or EOS 1HS.

HS or RS?? :confused: I too can only think of the RS model (fixed power drive booster E1 with fixed mirror).

The 1N is in the 1 series though many people do wonder otherwise. Naming conventions are unchanged. The 1V is indeed enumerated the EOS 1V and is no different as an EOS name to any other body preceding it e.g. EOS 3 (or the ill-fated EOS 30 / 33 models). Working professionals using Canon from 1989 onwards would recognise the direct descendency from the EOS 1 to the EOS 1N (the refinements caused a stampede at the time), then EOS 1N RS etc. The vintage '1' is still in wide use; two cyclists I know shooting documentary use one body each fitted with 20mm f2.8 lenses.

I manhandled the EOS 1V on Saturday in a pro-dealer's 2H shelves (there were four available, my testing being with the TS-E 24L PC lens) as I was weight-testing the load on a GITZO GT0931 Basalt tripod for overnight bushwalking. This spiderly but surprisingly rigid tripod held with the 1V bulk (2.88kg) on it — a bit more in weight than my 1N, which I couldn't bring with me as I was on MTB with just a Camelbak. That test 1V was missing (through abrasion / contact) much of the legend around the top left side panel.

 

[SilverGlow]

As to the OP, and his choices, I would only get an EOS body that supports E-TTL, as I think this is a fantastic feature.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

He could get any EOS body, actually, and maybe invest some knowledge in separate flash metering technique which remains, as ever, relevant with any EOS body, including E-TTL. Much preferable to develop skill through experience and not rely heavily on "fantastic" technology which, as useful as it may be, is not infallible. Flash metering is a specialisation that all photographers should invest in, irrespective of flash used.

 

[mudman]

The 18-55 will NOT fit on a film camera. Don't attempt it either as it protrudes to far into the body. I'd go for the EOS 3 myself.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes I will have to look at affordability. Anybody know what's a reasonable price? Honestly I'm not willing to pay more than 200-300... I'm from Australia so dunno if it's cheaper here or USA?

The 400D is digital. You cannot put digital-series (EF-S) lenses on film bodies — don't try it for want of the damage this can cause.

Maybe consider something like a Canon T90 or Olympus OM4 or Nikon FE2 (can be had for around AUD$220.00) and adapt for your Tamron? I am not sure an EOS 3 body could be had for AUD$300, more likely in the AUD$500 range. It now would seem to me that your price range limits will dictate what body you pick up, unlikely the 1V, only a little less likely the 3. A few others choices: EOS 50/50E (ECF), 5 (flawed ECF), 30/33, just good basic cameras (my first and most successful B&W triptych shot 14 years ago came through the EOS 50E and a humble 20mm lens: the printer did the rest!).

Note that true macro (1:1) photography will not benefit from, nor be facilitated by, autofocus. "Close focus" (<<1:1) might be OK.

 

[2F/2F]

As to the OP, and his choices, I would only get an EOS body that supports E-TTL, as I think this is a fantastic feature.

E-TTL is just as flawed as any reflected light meter. It will rarely give you the ideal exposure, just as with any reflected meter read directly off of the composition. Like all directly-read (meaning no tonal placement is performed), subject-reading (as opposed to incident light-reading) meters, it is inherently flawed in that it will not likely give the ideal exposure.

If the flash sensed the distance of that which you were focused on, knew what modifiers were attached, what kind of surfaces your were bouncing off of, how big the room is, etc., and altered the flash power to match that, your exposures for the subject at the plane of focus would be near perfect every time.

...but this is not how TTL flash metering works. This would be an impossible system to design for practical use. By the time you input all the variables, your shot would be gone.

You will get better flash exposures learning to adjust your flash power and/or f stop with distance than you will ever be able to get with any TTL flash meter....not to even mention incident flash meters....the best method for accurate flash exposures. They can be used in more hand held speedlight-lit situations than one would imagine (though not all of them).

E-TTL is a way to get some sort of workable exposure an average amount of the time for average people who who shoot average-toned compositions and cannot and/or will not do the above. It is not the way to get the ideal exposure.

Does this mean it has no use? Of course not! It just means that, like with any automated function, you have to be so aware of what it is doing, and always fudging it this way and that, that you are basically taking manual control of it anyhow! In this application, it can be a slight time saver, though you still need a manual thought process to get the best out of it.

It can also get you that quick, sloppy, ugly, lazy shot in a printable, though not ideal, way. IMO, this is its greatest use! Sometimes, having the freedom to not worry about being technically perfect can free you to snap pix at exactly the right time. An less-than-ideal exposure on a greatly-timed and positioned shot is better than a perfect exposure on a shot in which you missed your desired composition and timing.

 

[SilverGlow]

E-TTL is just as flawed as any reflected light meter. It will rarely give you the ideal exposure, just as with any reflected meter read directly off of the composition. Like all directly-read (meaning no tonal placement is performed), subject-reading (as opposed to incident light-reading) meters, it is inherently flawed in that it will not likely give the ideal exposure.

If the flash sensed the distance of that which you were focused on, knew what modifiers were attached, what kind of surfaces your were bouncing off of, how big the room is, etc., and altered the flash power to match that, your exposures for the subject at the plane of focus would be near perfect every time.

...but this is not how TTL flash metering works. This would be an impossible system to design for practical use. By the time you input all the variables, your shot would be gone.

You will get better flash exposures learning to adjust your flash power and/or f stop with distance than you will ever be able to get with any TTL flash meter....not to even mention incident flash meters....the best method for accurate flash exposures. They can be used in more hand held speedlight-lit situations than one would imagine (though not all of them).

E-TTL is a way to get some sort of workable exposure an average amount of the time for average people who who shoot average-toned compositions and cannot and/or will not do the above. It is not the way to get the ideal exposure.

Does this mean it has no use? Of course not! It just means that, like with any automated function, you have to be so aware of what it is doing, and always fudging it this way and that, that you are basically taking manual control of it anyhow! In this application, it can be a slight time saver, though you still need a manual thought process to get the best out of it.

It can also get you that quick, sloppy, ugly, lazy shot in a printable, though not ideal, way. IMO, this is its greatest use! Sometimes, having the freedom to not worry about being technically perfect can free you to snap pix at exactly the right time. An less-than-ideal exposure on a greatly-timed and positioned shot is better than a perfect exposure on a shot in which you missed your desired composition and timing.

I would have to disagree...I have tens of thousands of flashed wedding pictures that prove what you wrote otherwise. E-TTL is a fantastic feature and it is repeatable and consistent once one knows how it works. E-TTL2 is even better but not supported by any film EOS bodies, save for the very latest Rebel?

Since the flash meters through the lens, it is irrelevent for the camera to know about the flash modifiers, and the newer EOS flashes do take in consideration the distance from the subject, and it weighs heavily on the focus point the shooter chose. In addition the flash does not care if the it is bounced off the ceiling or wall, again because it meters TTL. All this conspires to create a flashing system that is right on perfect most of the time. The flash works closely with the chosen focus point and this conspiracy results in excellent exposure metering. In addition, the "input of all the variables" is mostly automatic, so the shot will not be gone by the time the camera workflow is done.

There are thousands of EOS pro shooters that rely heavily on E-TTL for millions of wedding and other types of shots with awesome results.

I love that one can slave many other EOS flashes and E-TTL supports this automatically, and E-TTL allows the photographer to focus his mind mostly on setting up the shot, composing it...manual flashing is old school and no longer needed save for the very specialized and rare shots. Little need for hand held light meters when using TTL bodies such as the Nikon's and the Canons (later film SLR models only).

 

[Tom Stanworth]

1n feels more solid, Eos 3 has more useful features, some improved control functionality and noticeably faster continuous rate. Feels less solid though as for the 2% difference in the finder accuracy, that's neither here not there.

Beware buying used and check thoroughly. 3 out of 4 of the used SLRs I have bought had faults. One did not focus accurately, one had the detentes missing from the command wheel (functions fine) and one had a command wheel that did not function but felt like it should!

 

[brucemuir]

1n has ttl
1v and 3 have ettl