Canon EOS 3 - new to me

[Tom Cross]

Just bought a Canon EOS 3 which has arrived today - I haven't seen it yet but I've wanted one of these for a long time as it will slip in with my digital kit using the same lenses, flashes, etc. Does anyone know of any common faults to look out for?

 

[Hatchetman]

the dreaded "bc error"

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0062IQ

 

[Stephen Weston]

I had one of these a few years back and found it to be a great camera. Regretted selling it to be honest when I went to the dark side. Every now and again I think of getting another but that would mean another system. SWMBO would have a fit. The only thing that springs to mind was the eye focus. Though I don't recall having any problems with mine I do recollect that some found that it didn't work well.

 

[Helinophoto]

Eye control work well but may struggle with glasses.

Weather sealing isn't super (a rainfall killed mine ).

Works in the same manner as the 1v (which replaced my ruined 3)

My impression: great camera, but struggles with rain and moisture.

 

[flavio81]

Mmm... I own a EOS 5 and tested an EOS 3 last week.

The EOS 3 struggled with eye-control (of course I calibrated it) where my EOS 5 nails the focus point every time. Now, perhaps that EOS 3 was faulty.

But my EOS 5 has built in AF illuminator and a good camera flash, which I feel are important.

On the other hand the EOS 3 feels fantastically built for an EOS camera and felt very good in the hands. Perhaps I should buy it. Much better built than the EOS 5.

 

[flavio81]

the dreaded "bc error"

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0062IQ

According to that thread, it is caused by dirty battery contacts, so it's not so "dreaded", i think.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The camera has featured in some old discussions about erratic metering and battery exhaustion that is out of character with expectations. This might be how the camera is used (it is not a professional body though that never stopped enthusiasts from calling it such!). Whether these are borne out in actual use with the camera remains an individual experience rather than one that is known to occur absolutely (refer mir.com.my for in-depth detail about this camera). IF I had a valid reason to ditch my long-serving and faultless EOS 1N, I would skip completely anything that came after that and go for the EOS 1V.

More common and benign errors concern film loading, and this is common among all EOS bodies with automatic film load and wind-on. If it is not loaded correctly, the exposure level bar that also doubles as confirmation that film is loaded, will blink rapidly.

I have had the EOS 5 and EOS 50E and the 50E was much more refined in terms of eye control accuracy, but it also became a nuisance and finally more of a gimmick than anything to be called an assistant in professional use. No surprise Canon dropped this feature due to reams and reams of feedback through Canon Professional Services.

 

[Ron789]

I have an EOS 3 (and an EOS 5, an EOS 1 and an EOS 1n).
Looking at the differences between these 4 cameras:
The EOS 5 is more plasticy and flimsy, and I find the built-in flash terrible, especially since you cannot switch it off in the automatic modes. Fortunately I slammed it down so often that one happy day the flash gave up and never reappeared. Much better!
The EOS 1 and 1n are more rugged and more compact, and the 1n is also water-resistant. A bit heavier though than the EOS 3.
The EOS 3 eye-controlled focus is brilliant but doesn't work well with glasses. So in my case it's pretty useless.
Bottom-line: if you don't wear glasses, the EOS 3 is superb due to the very sophisticated eye-controlled focus. If you wear glasses or you need a very rugged and/or water-resistant camera you're better off with an EOS 1 / 1n / 1v.

The "BC error" can also occur due to other reasons than dirty battery contacts. I sometimes get it when using old manual lenses under low-light conditions. Power off - power on will fix it but it is annoying.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

the dreaded "bc error"

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/0062IQ

I have never seen the BC alert of any of the EOS bodies I have owned*.
Am I just careful, or is something missing??

_____________________________________________
* EOS 10, EOS 5, EOS 50E, EOS 1N

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have an EOS 3 (and an EOS 5, an EOS 1 and an EOS 1n).
Looking at the differences between these 4 cameras:
The EOS 5 is more plasticy and flimsy, and I find the built-in flash terrible, especially since you cannot switch it off in the automatic modes. Fortunately I slammed it down so often that one happy day the flash gave up and never reappeared. Much better!
The EOS 1 and 1n are more rugged and more compact, and the 1n is also water-resistant. A bit heavier though than the EOS 3.
The EOS 3 eye-controlled focus is brilliant but doesn't work well with glasses. So in my case it's pretty useless.
Bottom-line: if you don't wear glasses, the EOS 3 is superb due to the very sophisticated eye-controlled focus. If you wear glasses or you need a very rugged and/or water-resistant camera you're better off with an EOS 1 / 1n / 1v.

The "BC error" can also occur due to other reasons than dirty battery contacts. I sometimes get it when using old manual lenses under low-light conditions. Power off - power on will fix it but it is annoying.

Ah, the EOS 5. My long-ago mothballed EOS 5 was repaired no less than 7x by Canon, all from normal landscape/scenic use: faulty flash actuation button, broken mode control dial (twice) on the top ('freewheeling'), corroded LCD driver/controller circuit, broken lens release button, broken rear cover latch and a fault in the battery circuit (most involved) that saw me get only 18 exposures made from a 36 exposure roll. Summary: the EOS 5 is plastic-y CRAP. I came very, very close to throwing the thing away and going back to the T90 (I strongly suspect from correspondence that even Canon took a dim view of the 5 ). Fortunately, the EOS 1N redeemed the dodginess very nicely and I'm still powering along with that super trooper (bought in 1994 for a couple of dollars shy of $4,000...).

 

[Ron789]

Wow, Garyh.... you have not been very lucky with that EOS 5. I bought mine in '95, it has never been repaired or serviced and it is still functioning well (apart from the built-in flash and that I consider a big improvement, as mentioned). But I fully agree, the EOS 1n is a much more solid and reliable tool.

 

[Tony-S]

Well, I have both the EOS 3 and the A2E (USA version of EOS 5) and I prefer the 3. Much more rugged with many more features. I have had the dreaded bc error and had to pound the camera on the carpeted floor to get the magnetic shutter mechanism to release. So, once a month, I turn the camera on and fire the shutter 20 or 30 times without film in the camera. Just to keep the dreaded bc error from returning.

 

[CMoore]

I have always been interested in those "1" cameras.
Was it the 1V and 1n.?
Anyway.....i suppose it was the change in mounts that kept me away. I am pretty much addicted to FD at this point in my life.
At any rate, i am glad to see these cameras get used.
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.?
Thank You

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have always been interested in those "1" cameras.
Was it the 1V and 1n.?
Anyway.....i suppose it was the change in mounts that kept me away. I am pretty much addicted to FD at this point in my life.
At any rate, i am glad to see these cameras get used.
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.?
Thank You

Chip,
The EOS 1 was the first camera off the blocks in the professional series line-up in the autumn of 1989, with Canon releasing a swag of first-generation L-series lenses matched to it. It saw wide professional take-up in media (just as Nikon's cameras did) e.g. general reportage and then more commonly sports photography. It was not so common in the 1990s (compared to now) as a camera for amateurs or enthusiasts, chiefly because of the huge cost for the body only ($4,000+ was a lot of motza back in 1994!) and a perception that it was confusing and technical. It was the feedback from these two intensive professional applications that gave birth to the EOS 1N in in 1994, such as enhanced speed and number of autofocus and improvements in drive technology. The 1V replaced the 1N at the end of the 1N's production life until such point where Canon ceased analogue body production in favour of concentrating on digital. And here we are! So the old FD mount is now the preserve of enthusiasts like those who use the lovely T90. I certainly enjoyed using the T90 and FD-mount lenses and the EF (EOS) came as quite a shock with its heavy reliance on electronic connectivity compared to the T90. That's progress. Now we're all heavily into "electronic connectivity"!!

If Canon had not had any success or following with the EF mount and EOS bodies, it would not be in the top two of the heavy-hitting marques, the other being Nikon. Neither manufacturer had anything to gain by sticking with the old manual mounts.

 

[CMoore]

Great (per usual) info...thanks.
You say Canon and Nikon..."had nothing to gain".....but didn't Nikon stick with its F Mount.?
Or was it just that a new Nikon body would also, still, accept the older F Mount.....where the Canon would not...if you know what i am trying to ask.?
Thank You

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Great (per usual) info...thanks.
You say Canon and Nikon..."had nothing to gain".....but didn't Nikon stick with its F Mount.?
Or was it just that a new Nikon body would also, still, accept the older F Mount.....where the Canon would not...if you know what i am trying to ask.?
Thank You

It has always been Canon vs Nikon / Nikon vs Canon. They both have tried to out-do the other since Nelson lost an eye. If one of them had stayed with the manual mount (e.g. Canon with the FD), it would have lost market share to the other (Nikon was well advanced into equivalent lens design by 2001). This market competition made the cameras better and better over time (although I am not fond of cameras packing in so much technology that they virtually take over the photography for the bloke standing behind it...). Where is the economic sense in that? Especially since once the world got wind of the wonders of digital, where was the economic basis for maintaining analogue when such a seismic shift was taking place to the new technology? Nobody wanted manual mounts. They wanted the new kids on the block. Personally I don't differentiate between one system being better than the other — they are both excellent in use and efficiency, whether analogue or digital. The old FD-mount holds no appeal to me, but I have a soft spot for the T90 and Nikon's F90X. YMMV.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

A note about eye-control if you think you might want to use it: do the calibrations in good light.

On my Elan 7NE, without glasses, eye control works well in both good and dim (interior) light. With glasses, it mostly works in good light but not dim light.

 

[flavio81]

Great (per usual) info...thanks.
You say Canon and Nikon..."had nothing to gain".....but didn't Nikon stick with its F Mount.?
Or was it just that a new Nikon body would also, still, accept the older F Mount.....where the Canon would not...if you know what i am trying to ask.?
Thank You

Nikon and Pentax stuck to the old mount, adding electrical contacts for AF.

Canon switched to a new mount of bigger throat size, to be able to design the 50/1.0L made to show Nikon who's the leader in optics, and full electronic operation, to avoid having to implement a mechanical diaphragm mechanism. The linkages on a Canon FD lenses are many.

These contribute to greater freedom for designing lenses. It also contributed to bring Canon FD lens prices dramatically down. Thanks Canon!!

Also, they made the lens-flange-to-film-plane distance longer, and this means that you can't mount a Canon FD lens with an adapter and have infinity focus. Why? The only reason was to annoy Canon FD users. Ah, and to enable the usage of a bigger mirror and thus optical benefits on the viewfinder.

Nikon in reality has made many variations on its mount over the year and not every lens is compatible with every body. Meanwhile Pentax, a company that loves photographers, has kept full compatibility.

 

[flavio81]

It has always been Canon vs Nikon / Nikon vs Canon. They both have tried to out-do the other since Nelson lost an eye.

To be honest, in the 50s it was more or less Canon versus Leitz and Nikon versus Carl Zeiss/Contax. They were in the rangefinder business.
In the early 60s Canon was still thinking on rangefinders while Nikon went successful with the SLR business. Meanwhile Pentax, the real white elephant of camera collectors, was king, sold more than Canon and Nikon combined, and was far more advanced in optics.

I would say that only in the mid 60s, circa 1964-65 (introduction of the FL lenses), the real battle started. And when the FD lenses and Canon F-1 was released (1971), you could say the real Canon-Nikon all-out war began. Canon went into full page or even two-page advertisements of the Canon F-1, with endorsements by pro photographers such as Elliott Erwitt. The Canon F-1 was possibly the first competitor to the Nikon "system" cameras, in this case the Nikon F2. BTW, i own the both F2 and the F-1 and I would say that the Nikon F2 has a smarter, easier to use design, while the Canon F-1 is smaller, smoother and noticeably better built.

 

[CMoore]

I always dig these Nikon Vs Canon posts...!!
Not because i Like/Think one is better than the other, but they are so interesting when guys with the knowledge of the history show up.
I sure did not know that "stuff" about Pentax...very interesting indeed.
There certainly are a few Pentax i would love to own (i do not own any), but i cannot really justify another 35mm system.
There are a few Minolta i would be happy to have as well...but it would just be a pride of ownership thing, as none of them would help me shoot any better than the Nikon/Canon/Olympus that i already own.
At this point, my Minolta/Pentax 35mm money is better spent on getting my darkroom in order.
BUT...if you guys want to throw out anymore Minolta/Canon/Pentax/Nikon/Olympus gossip from that magic 1965-1985 era of film cameras, I am all ears and eyes.
Thanks

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I always dig these Nikon Vs Canon posts...!!
There certainly are a few Pentax i would love to own (i do not own any), but i cannot really justify another 35mm system.

Look closely! There's a thread somewhere still active, titled (wait for it...) "Which is better, Canon vs Nikon?" or similar. I'm not going there!!

As I've said, I have absolutely nothing against either or any and people asking "which is better Nikon vs Canon" are best left to sort themselves out with studying photography and its application rather than glossing over names. That said, we are fortunate to have such a huge variety to chose from, of which the EOS 3 is bar just one.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

At the time of the Pentax Spotmatic (1964), many manufacturers in addition to Pentax used the M42 screw mount. The M42 mount was the closest the industry came to a universal mount. I think Pentax was one of the last to switch to a bayonet mount (the K-mount) in 1975.

Leica has had their M-mount since 1954 and Hasselblad has had its 500-series mount since 1957. I'm sure there are others.

I've mentioned this before, but Canon made a very bold and risky move in 1987 when they ditched and obsoleted the FD mount, creating the FD / EF barrier which lenses and bodies cannot cross. History has proven that Canon made the right move, although it took years for that to be apparent. Fortunately, the Japanese had the fortitude (culture?) to not abandon their decision too early.

 

[CMoore]

History has proven that Canon made the right move.....

I have read similar statements like this many times.
Did Nikon make the right decision to Not Do what Canon did.?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I have read similar statements like this many times.
Did Nikon make the right decision to Not Do what Canon did.?

Yes, I think so. In my opinion, what was right for Canon was not necessarily right for Nikon.

Canon, with their FD mount, couldn't easily transform that into autofocus lenses - that is my understanding. Maybe they actually could have, but found the approach too unappealing compared to starting with an entirely new design tailored for large apertures, autofocus, and electronic aperture control. The new EF mount eliminated the aperture ring and may have been less expensive to manufacture.

Nikon felt it was important to maintain compatibility. That was very important to pros back then. I believe Nikon have always been more conservative than Canon. Their choice really hasn't hurt them a great deal, though I think Canon is a preference among pros in sporting events. Nikon lenses seem to be compatible with Nikon bodies within any 20-year sliding window. I notice now that Nikon's new E lenses (not to be confused with the old Series E) are essentially equivalent to Canon's EF lenses in that the aperture is electronically controlled within the lens.

 

[Tom Cross]

I have an EOS 3 (and an EOS 5, an EOS 1 and an EOS 1n).
Looking at the differences between these 4 cameras:
The EOS 5 is more plasticy and flimsy, and I find the built-in flash terrible, especially since you cannot switch it off in the automatic modes. Fortunately I slammed it down so often that one happy day the flash gave up and never reappeared. Much better!
The EOS 1 and 1n are more rugged and more compact, and the 1n is also water-resistant. A bit heavier though than the EOS 3.
The EOS 3 eye-controlled focus is brilliant but doesn't work well with glasses. So in my case it's pretty useless.
Bottom-line: if you don't wear glasses, the EOS 3 is superb due to the very sophisticated eye-controlled focus. If you wear glasses or you need a very rugged and/or water-resistant camera you're better off with an EOS 1 / 1n / 1v.

The "BC error" can also occur due to other reasons than dirty battery contacts. I sometimes get it when using old manual lenses under low-light conditions. Power off - power on will fix it but it is annoying.

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.