Canon Equivalent of Nikon F100?

Laurent

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
1,829
Location
France
Format
Multi Format
Hi,

The EOS3 is the almost exact equivalent.
I have one and positively love it, it's the second greastest 35mm I eve had (the first one was the T90 but it's dead from sticky shutter)

AF is great, the body alone is not too big, with the booster it's very big and heavy but handling is so easy that I can't get rid of this booster.

Main issue I have with it is battery consumption and battery tester : my cells seem to die very suddenly after 1 years and without warning. Using NiMh cells is much better.
 

GeoffHill

Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
298
Location
Newcastle, E
Format
35mm
Is the size thing that much of an issue, an Eos1V would feel more balanced with a big lens like the 70-200 2.8, and not much more expensive
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
First of all, I would not switch. Not for that lens. The 16-35 is not worth switching for. It is not that sharp, the ultra wide end of it is way too wide for me and not that useful for most things, and Nikon has an equivalent: the 17-35 f/2.8 ED.

Canon has the following that significantly set them apart from Nikon:

24mm 1.4
35mm 1.4 with AF
50mm 1.2 with AF (and 1.0 if you spend a lot and buy used)
85mm 1.2
45mm T/S
Used to be the 24mm T/S as well, but Nikon just introduced a competitor.

If you don't see yourself using any of those lenses, there is no point in switching, IMO.

Nikon has the 35 and the 50, but manual focus only.

Also, Nikon has things in other areas that Canon dos not have: most notably the 200-400, a much cheaper fast 85mm (albeit 1/2 stop slower than Canon's), and a much cheaper fast 200mm ($4,000 vs. $6,000 for the Canon).

Nikon have done little work on their fixed-length lenses during the AF age, compared to what they have done on their line of zooms. They seem to have put most of their work into designing zooms instead. As such, Canon beats them hands down in the very fast fixed-length lens department, while it could be argued, probably successfully, that Nikon beats Canon zoomwise.

Super teles from Nikon are more expensive than the Canons, however.

Either brand will get the job done just fine. It is just a hassle to switch. However, if you must, the EOS 3 on the used market is an unbelievable bang for the buck. I would say it is equal, if not superior to the F100. It has the same AF as the 1V, plus ECF, and is about half the price of the 1V. My friend got hers locally for $175, and it looks like new. Usually you can find them for $300 or less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

haris

I am Canon EOS3 user, and I am happy with it. I would never swich it for Nikon F100, but also if I am F100 user, I would not swich it for Canon EOS3. My friend has F100, and we both agreed that there is no point swiching. Only if you are attracted with Canon's eye focusing, 35 focusing points, multi spotmetering, and like, that could be reason. Both have lenses which would produce excellent photographs. Like BMW and Mercedes. If you have one it is small difference to other (of course if both are same class), and only some emotional or subconcious reason can force one to choose between those two.

Here (in this part of the world) Canon is allways considered as fast, sport photographer camera, and Nikon as portrait, fashion, and photojournalism (war and street) camera. People here prefer Nikon, but it is mosly due fact that importer here during communism imported only Nikon, so people are used to them (we had no choice )...

Oh, and if you are not in must for f2.8, there is 70-200 f4 with IS (image stabilizer) for much less money than f2.8.

Just my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ooze

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
428
Location
Istanbul/Düsseldorf
Format
Multi Format
The EOS3 might be the closest equivalent, but although a very capable camera it's also the loudest one I've ever used (together with a 1N). This may or may not be important for you. The F100 is less noisier.

Cheers,
omar
 

WarEaglemtn

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
461
Format
Multi Format
The EOS 3 is a beautiful camera especially with the booster attached. If you need more frames per second you move up the the EOS 1 series, great tools.

Just be very aware that if you do switch to Canon you will no longer have any body that is fully manual in the camera bag. The EOS system does not have one.

Nikon still does. When all goes to hell you still have a few solid fully manual film bodies to shoot with if you stay with Nikon.

Batteries do die. You can live with the loss of metering but not the complete loss of everything.

The canon 400 f/2.8 is much nicer than the Nikon model and a number of friends who shoot NFL/pro sports heavily stay with Canon specifically for this lens. Their needs and yours might be different but if you use this lens it is worth it. A number of sports shooters are now using both systems to get the best glass possible for specific jobs. Unwieldy at times but it fills their needs.

If you like Nikon, why not stay put?
 

WarEaglemtn

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
461
Format
Multi Format
One thing to add. If you do make the move to Canon you will be relegated to an inferior strobe system. Nikon beats Canon in flash capability every day of the week. For some reason Canon just can't get it right with their electronic flash gear.
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format
The F100 is as good, or superior, to the EOS3
and there has never been an advantage switching from Canon to Nikon,
or the other way around.

If you want to spend some dough,
buy a Focomat Ic (for next to nothing) and see how good your pictures can be.

Or run up to Toronto and take a Workshop at Elevator.
Get buzzed by using the amazing stuff you've got !

.
 
OP
OP

AutumnJazz

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
742
Location
Fairfield, C
Format
35mm
The reason I started this whole thing, was that I was looking into getting the 17-35mm (and 80-200mm) for my Nikon. The extra mm on the Canon intrigued me.

ECF sounds interesting...

Oh, I don't know. Decisions, decisions. I wouldn't be doing this until July, at least, so I have time to think.

Oh, and as for strobes...When I do start to use them, I plan on using them all manual, off-camera, and sticking with Nikon strobes anyway (probably SB-28/80's).

Does the EOS have rear-curtain sync?
 

srmcnamara

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Baltimore
Format
4x5 Format
Nikon has that much abuzzed about 14-24 lens for about $1,600 which would work on your f100 and give you quite a few extra mms. it's only about 200 more than the canon and by all accounts, it's an incredible performer
 

Gary Holliday

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
824
Location
Belfast, UK
Format
Medium Format
If the extra 1mm is the only reason you want to switch I'd honestly leave it. These extreme wide zooms were only designed for the digishital market. I wouldn't use anything wider than 24mm for the majority of subjects.

I held both the F100 and Canon EOS 3 and decided on the Canon...It felt better and I was swayed by the revolutionary focusing system! I could do with another L lens though.
 

ehparis

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
376
Location
U.S.A.
Format
35mm
The Canons suggested are good cameras as is the glass suggested. That said I'm a Nikon user and wouldn't switch formats as any perceived differences in lenses is non-existent IMHO. There's lots of good equipment out there and the F100 or one of the Canons all have their good attributes (Pentax is another good example).
 

milkplus-mesto

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
94
Format
35mm
By the way, at Calumet Photo at the moment, there are $225 worth of instant rebates on that glass - $125 for the 70-200 and $100 for the 16-35. Not that i'd want this to hurry your decision. I'd highly reccommend Canon, though.
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format
A cool thing about the F100 is that is focuses Manual Focus lenses well.
Unlike LOTS of AF cameras.

And there is a LOT of joy to be had with older, MF, Nikon glass.

.
 

PhotoJim

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
2,314
Location
Regina, SK, CA
Format
35mm
df cardwell said:
And there is a LOT of joy to be had with older, MF, Nikon glass..
Click to expand...

My AI-S 16/2.8 fisheye loves my F100.

And I love it.

And the AF-S 17-35/2.8D ED is a beautiful piece of glass. It's one of my favourite lenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soeren

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,675
Location
Naestved, DK
Format
Multi Format
df cardwell said:
A cool thing about the F100 is that is focuses Manual Focus lenses well.
Unlike LOTS of AF cameras.

And there is a LOT of joy to be had with older, MF, Nikon glass.

.
Click to expand...

And new Zeiss glass.
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format
OP
OP

AutumnJazz

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
742
Location
Fairfield, C
Format
35mm
Oh man. Now I've decided to stay with Nikon, but now I can't decide between the 17-35 and the 14-24. I really want to use filters, so for now, I'm really looking at the 17-35, but those 3 extra milimeters are staring at me, and I can't stop staring at them.

I'm such a gear-head.
 

PhotoJim

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
2,314
Location
Regina, SK, CA
Format
35mm

So buy a 14mm fixed lens as well. Have the best of both worlds.

14 is very, very wide. Few photographers would use such a lens often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…