Canon EOS 1v or Nikon F100

[Odot]

I would like to get me a Film camera with autofocus ability so i looked at these two.

Which one should i get and why? Can these two even be compared?

Thanks in advance

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

If I had to guess I'd say the 1V has a better AF system than the F100, but not as good as the F6. You can get F6 bodies on fleabay right now for about the same as what 1Vs go for, where as F100s are the best bet money-wise. If you like Nikon get a Nikon, if you like Canon stick with Canon. I'd say it comes down to that more than the differences in AF performance. They're all pretty good, but nowhere near what we have now with digital cameras.

 

[Les Sarile]

Do you already have lenses for either or are you starting from scratch to build-up a system?

 

[cooltouch]

I agree with Sperdynamite. The 1V is an awesome piece of tech, but I think the F6 is awesomer. The F5 is closer to the 1V, I suspect.

I've been recently considering this same thing. I have modest collections of both Canon EF and Nikon AF lenses, so I could go either way, I guess. I have always felt, ever since the advent of the EOS mount, that it is the most sophisticated mount in 35mm photography -- and now digital has given me no reason to change my view. But Nikon keeps plugging away with its durable F mount and seems to manage just fine, so . . .

I have been a Canon user for some 33 years, FD and EF, and a Nikon user for some 27 years, mostly manual focus, but recently I've begun to use the F4 and N80. And since I have lenses for both systems, I'm trying to decide. The F4 is a great old camera -- emphasis "old". Its AF is about as good as my old EOS Rebel's was. So, even though I like it, it is not the pro-level AF film camera I would like to own. To be honest, I just can't decide.

Since one of the cameras you're asking about is the Nikon F100, I tried a "vs" search on the net against the EOS 3, and what I came away with is the two cameras are in a statistical dead heat. So I recommend you try to decide between an EOS 3 and a Nikon F100. You might find it very difficult to choose. I know I have.

 

[Ron789]

Both are excellent cameras. The condition of the specific camera you may run into is way more important: a mint EOS 1v is surely a better buy than a worn F100, and vice versa. If you already have Nikon lenses, buy a Nikon F100 in good condition; if you already have Canon lenses, buy a Canon EOS in good condition.
You may also want to consider an EOS 1 or EOS 1n; differences compred to EOS 1v are minimal and in most situations insignificant, but the 1 and 1n tend to cost much less and are more available.

 

[mweintraub]

Do you already have lenses for either or are you starting from scratch to build-up a system?

This. I continued the Nikon AF SLR route because I already had FF Nikon AF lenses. Something to consider.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Canon EOS 1V is very close to either a F5 or 6, if you shoot action the 1V has the options for 2 battery grips, one a larger battery grip gives more FPS. In terms of lens, just about all canon full frame lens including the most recent L glass versions will all work on a 1V, while the newer Nikon E lens will not work work on a F100, 5 or 6. Canon also makes a non VR 70 to 200, so if you are shooting sports and action good glass at a better price. If you are starting a new kit, then I would not rule out a Minolta 7 or 9 or a Pentax MZ, Pentax's last pro level film camera.

 

[Odot]

Sorry for not replying sooner. Currently i dont have an DSLR System so it wouldnt matter, although i must say that i used to shoot Nikon full frame format and while the dynamic range for landscape was amazing, i really hated the color rendition of the skintones.

Since this is analog, is there a way to compare these two in terms of color management or IQ?

The Canon EOS 3 and Nikon F100 look pretty good for me right now (need to read more into it).

 

[pentaxuser]

i must say that i used to shoot Nikon full frame format and while the dynamic range for landscape was amazing, i really hated the color rendition of the skintones.

Since this is analog, is there a way to compare these two in terms of color management or IQ?

So is it the case that Canon lenses render skin tones better or do you believe that there is something else in the Canon system that renders skin tones better?

I ask this question because I cannot recall ever seeing this as a quoted difference between the two cameras

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[flavio81]

Since this is analog, is there a way to compare these two in terms of color management or IQ?

Color management does not apply here, i think.

In terms of image quality there are Canon EF lenses that are just superb and inexpensive (for example the 85/1.8). From the lenses i own, i love the 85/1.8, the EF 24/2.8 and the EF 50/1.8 MK1, they are as good as any photographer will need, and also you can use the Nikon->EF adapter to mount Nikon lenses if you want. The telephoto EF lenses are legendary, and also there are some wide angle lenses that are just great (35/2.0, 24/2.8, 20/2.8). For normal lenses the 50/1.8 (first version) is great, there is the second version which is cheap and good, skip the 50/1.4 -it is a bit mediocre-, the 50/1.2L is excellent although expensive.

For the Nikon system there are also superb lenses, although i think that the older EF lenses (secondhand) are more reasonably priced. Here the later 50/1.4G is very good although i don't know if it will work correctly with the F100. I own many Nikon lenses, however all of them are manual focus. My favorite Nikon 50s are the Nikkor-HC 50/2.0 and the obscure Nikkor-S 58/1.4.

Both are great cameras although you are comparing a pro camera (EOS-1V) to an "almost pro" camera (Nikon F100). The Nikon people love the F100 and the EOS people like the 1V a lot as well, so at the end it depends on which lens system do you want to get into.

 

[ic-racer]

I went with Nikon for my 35mm film cameras for the only reason that they still make 35mm film cameras. Too bad about Canon not making 35mm cameras any more.

 

[flavio81]

The Canon EOS 3 and Nikon F100 look pretty good for me right now (need to read more into it).

I own the EOS 5. I tested the EOS 3 and found it significantly better built and with more AF points, however my EOS 5 was lighter, had a very useful (read: good) auto-zoom Flash with red eye reduction and a very useful AF illuminator built in, so at the end i stayed with the EOS 5. The EOS 5 is a swell camera, so easy to use that you simply forget about the camera and just concentrate on taking pictures. The flash system is very reliable as well. The metering is also very reliable (slides came out exposed just right).
Regarding the automatic focus point tracking (eye control), it works flawleslly on my EOS 5 (which has only 5 AF points) but it worked a bit erratically on the EOS 3 i tested (which has like 30 AF points).

Eye control you either love it or disregard it. I love it. Note that this is my only AF film camera, all my other film cameras are manual focus and you can say i'm a "manual focus" shooter.

As for skin tone rendition, here we are in analog land and this will mostly depend on the FILM used.

Color balance is just fine for both Canon and Nikon lenses, those two companies, along with Asahi Pentax and Fuji Optical, were/are at the top of the game in optical design, you can't blame anything on the lenses.

 

[flavio81]

I went with Nikon for my 35mm film cameras for the only reason that they still make 35mm film cameras. Too bad about Canon not making 35mm cameras any more.

However the 35mm cameras they made will last for at least 50 years more. I am pretty sure my Canon F-1 will keep working for 50 years from now on, the same for my Nikon F2.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although lens coating does make a difference, color is primarily the result of your film options. If you shoot Nikon then I would stick with Nikon if you are shooting with non E lens, D and G. If you are shooting with E lens then again depending on what you shoot the Canon 1V or a EOS 3 is still an option. The F100 was not a top of line pro level camera, but many pro's and US military used the F100, very good metering the F5 or 6 has better build, the F5 interchangeable viewfinders. If you plan on shooting E6 then F100, F5 for color metering. If you think you may want to pick up non AF Nikon glass then I would also think about a F4. Again if you are shooting Nikon digital then I see no good reason to switch to Canon.

 

[Odot]

So is it the case that Canon lenses render skin tones better or do you believe that there is something else in the Canon system that renders skin tones better?

I ask this question because I cannot recall ever seeing this as a quoted difference between the two cameras

Thanks

pentaxuser

i cant say if its the cameras or the lenses but Canon provides a certain warmth(lack of a better word), while Nikon color renditions appear more cool. how much only the film plays a role here, i cannot say for sure.

 

[Paul Howell]

With a film camera it is all about the film, Porta 160 or 400 is warmer optimized for skin tones, Extar or Kodacolor is cooler with more vibrant colors good for travel or sports. Fuji has a similar film offering. You can use a warming filter as well. I would not chose a film camera based on the perceived color pallet of the lens. For that matter Sigma Art lens are very neutral. If you plan on scanning your negatives how warm or cool can be adjusted in post, if you plan on printing R4 adjust to your taste when printing. To chose a film camera consider: action, sports, people, children, pets, landscapes, wildlife, cityscapes, macro, weather resistant, all metal body, how often will be using it on rare occasion or daily, what kind of metering range, dim light, night work, what lens do you use?

 

[Odot]

. To chose a film camera consider: action, sports, people, children, pets, landscapes, wildlife, cityscapes, macro, weather resistant, all metal body, how often will be using it on rare occasion or daily, what kind of metering range, dim light, night work, what lens do you use?

I want to shoot street on a daily basis. The thing about the EOS 1v that somewhat irks me is that the image quality is too slick and clean. It lacks this certain grit-aspect that give street photography this extra something. Thats why i am now considering more of a F100 or EOS3. The option to shoot at night would also be great. Since i have no previous system, i am open to any lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

You think too digital, a film camera does not make a slick image, it is the lens and film combo. Putting a EOS or Nikon D or G Lens on a F 100 or EOS3 will give the same slick look as a F6 or EOS1V, it is the film and lens not the camera body. If you want a gritter image then shoot Kodacolor 400 for color and Foma or Kentemyer 400 for black and white, think about pushing the film for higher contrast and increased gain. The EOS 1v and Nikon F4 or 5 will stand up to hard daily use, they were designed for photo journalists. You can also consider a 70 or 60 vintage camera and lens. Nikormate and 50 F2 non AIS, Canon FTB and Canon 50 1.9, Pentax Spotmatic with 50 F2, or even a lower end camera like an American Argus C3 with 50 2.8. Modern films are far better technically than the films of the 80, 70, 60s, modern TriX is not same film as Trix from the past. Color film is developed in C41 chemistry so not chance to alter the look in development, while with black and white you can use a developer that gives a high contrast grainier look.

For street photography, depending on your budget, you may want to look into a rangefinder, a late Votilander with either Leica screw mount or M mount, a fast 35mm or 50mm. For that matter I shoot street scenes with a Konica S3 or Canon QL 1.7 fixed lens rangefinders.


I was just in Paris and shoot a lot of night scenes with a Minolta 600 SI and 50 1.8 and 28 mm 2.8 AF lens with Tmax 400 and Foma 400 pushed to 800. I often travel with the 600 SI rather than my Minolta 9 as it is lighter, has a good meter. In daylight l used a 35 to 70 F 3.5 as my prime lens.

 

[John Koehrer]

Color cast should only be noticeable in slides because it's the original media. There are a couple of variables
in C41 that pretty much cancel out the differences in printing.

If you had or have the opportunity to compare slides from both cameras it's easy
to see the difference. Putting prints side by side for comparison isn't practical because
age of the chemistry, lab operator's habits or machine cleanliness, different emulsion
batches of paper.

 

[MattKing]

Since this is analog, is there a way to compare these two in terms of color management or IQ?

No. They are both capable of superb results. Each offers compatibility with an amazing variety of very high quality (and sometimes mediocre quality) lenses. And each will permit you to spend money to your heart's content.

 

[Les Sarile]

The thing about the EOS 1v that somewhat irks me is that the image quality is too slick and clean. It lacks this certain grit-aspect that give street photography this extra something. Thats why i am now considering more of a F100 or EOS3.

How do you evaluate your results - from prints or CD provided by a lab? What was the source of the print - film? If so specifically which one?

 

[Chan Tran]

I would like to get me a Film camera with autofocus ability so i looked at these two.

Which one should i get and why? Can these two even be compared?

Thanks in advance

I don't think those 2 can be compared. I am a Nikon guy but the EOS-1V is in such a higher level than the F100 I would pick the EOS-1V

 

[emacs]

Yeah, the 1V is way above the F100. The F100 has 5 AF points, the 1V has 45. 1V also shoots at a higher burst rate, and will have better build quality. Overall, the 1V is on paper the better camera. But for street photography, you might find it to be a bit too much - heavy, bulky, loud, etc. Canon's EOS 3 also packs 45 AF points, but it's lighter and smaller than the 1V. Even smaller, and cheaper, is the Elan series - I have an Elan 7N which works great with all Canon EF lenses, even the new STM ones, and it's lightweight but solidly built. It has 7 AF points, which unless you're shooting sports/journo/wildlife should be more than enough, a built in flash, and the ability to add a battery grip.

Also, you'll notice no differences in color between cameras assuming you're using the same lens, and even then differences in color between lenses is minimal and can be corrected during scanning or printing. Remember, with analog photography the camera is basically a box that the lens attaches to and the film rests inside, there's nothing inside of it that'll affect the colors.

 

[Les Sarile]

Overall, the 1V is on paper the better camera. But for street photography, you might find it to be a bit too much - heavy, bulky, loud, etc. Canon's EOS 3 also packs 45 AF points, but it's lighter and smaller than the 1V.

The EOS3 is lighter than the 1V by about 160g but they have the same shape and dimensions.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

There's an EOS-1V in the for sale section right now.