Canon EOS 3 - new to me

Tom Cross said:

I always thought the EOS3 had some weather sealing? But looking at mine there doesn't appear to be much in the way of seals! I have read mixed reviews about the sealing with some saying they have been out in rain with no problems and others who have had ruined cameras after just a splash of water.

Click to expand...

It hasn't

Mine died in the rain and I actually took off the outer shell on it, in order to dry it out, not a seal in sight.
- The plastic shell does have some lines at the edges that may lead water away, but no gaskets or anything.

Also, i think the camera dies more easily if you have the battery-pack, at least mine seemed to get a real jolt from the 12(?) 1.5V batteries, in such a way it became completely buggered. (would turn on, but error-codes all over the place, etc and finally just died completely).

In my case, there was a pretty heavy rainfall coming in (typical passing summer rain-shower) and I thought since it was a professional camera -and I had a sealed lens mounted, it would be ok.
It was wet, but not really soaking wet, for about 10 minutes and then it went bonkers.

This was 9 years ago and I have since kept bags for bread in my photo-bag and I always cover my camera(s) immediately if it starts raining, paranoia saves money

CMoore said:

There certainly are a few Pentax i would love to own (i do not own any), but i cannot really justify another 35mm system.

Click to expand...

That's what we all say in this forum immediately before plunging into another new system and another shopping spree

Theo Sulphate said:

I believe Nikon have always been more conservative than Canon.

Click to expand...

Totally true. Nikon has always been a much more conservative company than Canon.

CMoore said:

I always dig these Nikon Vs Canon posts...!!

Click to expand...

Me too... I own both Canon and Nikon systems so i'm not really a "fanboy". Although my heart is slightly biased towards Canon.

If you want me to make a very quick comparison between them in the glory period between 1971-1986, my quick conclusion will be:

Cameras: Nikon generally designed them in a more clever/smart way as well as more ergonomic; Canon built them with higher quality fit, finish and smoothness.

Lenses: Canon had more advanced designs, usually better corrected, sometimes at the expense of creating a huge lens. Nikon built them with higher build quality.

Both systems are great and there are many gems in both lens lines.

BTW the Pentax M42 lenses are probably the best built japanese lenses. On the other hand many of them are very conservative optically, carrying the same optical design from the early 60s into the late 70s. This is not necesarily a bad thing since some of these "old" designs are perfect, for example the 28/3.5, 35/3.5 and 55/1.8. But others like the 105/2.8 are just ok while all the 105mm lenses by Nikon and all the 100mm lenses by Canon are outstanding.
And already in the 1960s Pentax M42 lenses were as compact as the later olympus OM lenses.

Minolta is also great. But Olympus must be the most overrated camera and lens brand in history. There, i said it.

CMoore said:

...
I got out of photography just as Canon was introducing The Rebel. Did Canon still have as good success with that next "generation" as they did with the F and A series of film cameras?

Click to expand...

The AE-1 and AE-1 Program were huge successes for Canon; I don't know if the various Rebel models exceeded that, but may well have. They certainly were not sales failures.

I used to sneer at the Rebel - the name, the plastic mount, the auto-everything. Then, a few years ago, a camera store owning friend was selling these for under $20. I was attracted by that big wide mount. I did some research on the Rebel G (EOS 500N) and thought it would be fun:

http://web.archive.org/web/20151102063608/http://w3.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/macro/canonrebg.html

...and it was. It's an excellent camera, inexpensive, light, and fun to use. With the very inexpensive and excellent EF 50/1.8 II I've made many photos I'm proud of.

flavio81 said:

... But Olympus must be the most overrated camera and lens brand in history. There, i said it.

Click to expand...

Ever since their full-page advertisements in 1972 I wanted an Olympus. Last year I finally got an OM-2n and am enthralled with it: the shape, the size, the Tardis-like manner in which the viewfinder image is so bright and big, the clever indicators, the attractive lenses...

If you want reliable weather sealing, you must move up to the professional-level EOS bodies, among them the EOS 1N (not the '1'), its variants and the later EOS 1V. The EOS 3 trumpeted a lot of advances, but it was never going to like hanging out in a downpour as much as, for example, a 1N or 1V (my camera has been drenched too many times that I cannot put a number to it). To complete the weather sealing, the camera should be joined with an L-series lens which has a rubber gasket at the flange mount (this is replaceable, but not a DIY job). All of the "white knight" lenses (they are actually grey) have weather sealing, including the zooms. The Power Drive Booster E1 for the 1N is also fittted with a tiny gasket where the electrical contacts are, creating a seal at a vulnerable point of water ingress.

Now, I'm not going to knock Olympus. My first camera in 1977 (instead of a Zenit E) was an OM10.
In my bicycle touring days from 1978 to 1993, in our club group a few had the "latest and greatest" of the Olympus system: the OM 1N or the OM2N, and the "look" was not complete without the Real McCoy wide teal and blue OLYMPUS neck strap! There were not a great variety of OM lenses at the time so most of us bought Tamron lenses, and these things were, frankly, bloody awful contraptions for the time with unreliable and jamming Adaptall mounts. To get a decent OM lens meant saving up a fair bit of money. By that time another guy in the club would already have acquired a lens to die for and so the race was on to out-do each other! My last OM camera was the OM4 (black) with motor drive 1984-1986) and three OM primes that I cannot recall exactly.

I have an EOS 3. I find the eye control stuff works, however it gets in the way of taking photos. I have it turned off on my various canons.

A week or two on and there's only one fault I can find which may not be a permanent one - a scratch right down each negative. It's not that bad but is noticeable. The eye focus works, but not well enough to rely on!

Poisson Du Jour said:

If you want reliable weather sealing, you must move up to the professional-level EOS bodies, among them the EOS 1N (not the '1'), its variants and the later EOS 1V. The EOS 3 trumpeted a lot of advances, but it was never going to like hanging out in a downpour as much as, for example, a 1N or 1V (my camera has been drenched too many times that I cannot put a number to it). To complete the weather sealing, the camera should be joined with an L-series lens which has a rubber gasket at the flange mount (this is replaceable, but not a DIY job). All of the "white knight" lenses (they are actually grey) have weather sealing, including the zooms. The Power Drive Booster E1 for the 1N is also fittted with a tiny gasket where the electrical contacts are, creating a seal at a vulnerable point of water ingress.

Click to expand...

I did buy an EOS 1N first and it kept draining the batteries. After dismantling it was clear it had some previous water ingress issues so I don't think they're any more water resistant than anything else. Needless to say it went back for a refund and I got the EOS 3.

When you say professional-level bodies what do you mean? From what I can see the 1N has hardly (if any) more functions than the EOS 3 except maybe shooting speed. They look identical.

Tom Cross said:

...
From what I can see the 1N has hardly (if any) more functions than the EOS 3 except maybe shooting speed. They look identical.

Click to expand...

Interesting comparison. I went to this site:

Dead Link Removed

and selected a comparison between the EOS 3 and 1N. Based on the results, I'd be tempted to get the EOS 3.

Usually, a pro camera has fewer features than a consumer body but is more rugged, better sealed against dust and moisture, and is faster. I looked for that, but except for a speed advantage the EOS 3 seems to closely match or exceed the 1N.

Having now had both I don't see any difference at all other than one works and one didn't. I've never liked the term "professional body", it is a meaningless and over-used phrase normally by people who have the said professional body already and think it makes them more professional to mention it to those who don't, why else mention it. I don't think I need to "move up"!! I don't think I need to stand around in the rain taking photos with rain spots all over the front of my lens to ruin a photo either! But I'm VERY pleased with my EOS 3 and if the negative scratching turns out to be something uneconomical to repair I'd definitely take a chance on another. Having had the Rebel 300 back in the day this is a nice step up but with most of the Canon comforts.

Theo Sulphate said:

Interesting comparison. I went to this site:

Dead Link Removed

and selected a comparison between the EOS 3 and 1N. Based on the results, I'd be tempted to get the EOS 3.

Usually, a pro camera has fewer features than a consumer body but is more rugged, better sealed against dust and moisture, and is faster. I looked for that, but except for a speed advantage the EOS 3 seems to closely match or exceed the 1N.

Click to expand...

That is true. What is also true is the EOS 3 was not a replacement nor something to be compared to, the EOS 1N. So why the persistent comparison?
The replacement for the 1N was the 1V and its variants. The 3 was a consumer / enthusiast grade camera and remains so, with nothing taken from the pro-level bodies (which thankfully were free of the silly eye control focusing function). You are not expected to be a pro to use the pro-level EOS bodies, and working pros do not need to flash them about as a status symbol. If the cameras say anything it is their reliability over the more than 20 years since the first rolled off. You don't see many of the first-generation EOS 1 bodies because so much begged improvement (speed and weather sealing).

Poisson Du Jour said:

That is true. What is also true is the EOS 3 was not a replacement nor something to be compared to, the EOS 1N. So why the persistent comparison?
The replacement for the 1N was the 1V and its variants. The 3 was a consumer / enthusiast grade camera and remains so, with nothing taken from the pro-level bodies (which thankfully were free of the silly eye control focusing function). You are not expected to be a pro to use the pro-level EOS bodies, and working pros do not need to flash them about as a status symbol. If the cameras say anything it is their reliability over the more than 20 years since the first rolled off. You don't see many of the first-generation EOS 1 bodies because so much begged improvement (speed and weather sealing).

Click to expand...

My original question was regarding common known problems to look out for with the EOS 3 - you were the first person to mention a completely different camera!

Tom Cross said:

I did buy an EOS 1N first and it kept draining the batteries. After dismantling it was clear it had some previous water ingress issues so I don't think they're any more water resistant than anything else. Needless to say it went back for a refund and I got the EOS 3.

When you say professional-level bodies what do you mean? From what I can see the 1N has hardly (if any) more functions than the EOS 3 except maybe shooting speed. They look identical.

Click to expand...

IMO, the EOS-3 was more or less a EOS 1v -beta- .

Check the specs here and see how much closer the '3' is to the 1V than the 1N.
http://photonotes.org/reviews/1-1n-3-1v/

Or a 'prosumer' camera if you like. (like the EOS 5D, to the 1Ds series in the *D* segment).

The '3' has much more in common with the 1V than the 1N (just look at the specs regarding the autofocus-points). It seemed they made an 'early version 1V', to test out some of the features "in the field", the later 1V, had a refined autofocus system and better processing-power.

At the same time, the '3' incorporated features such as eye-control, from the consumer/prosumer-grade EOS 5.
The 97% viewfinder coverage and a slower flash sync-speed are typically 'prosumer-level' traits, same is true regarding environmental sealing. (which is listed as 'good' in that chart, but it isn't sealed, do not get it wet! http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/009Ex5 )

I am sure Canon willingly nerfed the viewfinder and the sync-speed (hard to argue for a 1V if an EOS-3 has 99% of everything, at a lower price). Still, I think they landed so close on these two cameras that they did hurt the sales of the 1V somewhat.

BTW: They have been nerfing the prosumer-line for years, so that their more expensive pro-line would still sell well.

I can see that the mount on my 1V is different from my EOS-3, it seems that the 1V (and my 1ds mk II) have some kind of groove for the gasket of sealed lenses, the EOS-3, as far as I can remember, did not have any particular grooves around the lens-mount. (which mean that water at the lens-mount could potentially flow into the mount itself, while on the 1v/1DXX, it will flow away and around it).

...i think.

Also, the discussion regarding the 3,the 1V and 1N has been going on since the release of EOS-3 and 1V
2010: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00XAYD
2002: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/003ahr