Push me toward an awesome, reliable 35mm camera that has autofocus

[Fixcinater]

You already have a lot of good responses but as an owner of Canon DSLR gear and an EOS 3 body, I would heartily recommend it. It works basically exactly the same as the 5D WRT exposure comp and whatnot. Remember with negative film, esp. color neg, you have more exposure leeway so you don't need to work the exposure comp as much as you might with digital.

The 45 points of AF are fine but I mainly use the middle one and use back button focus to lock in focus, then recompose as needed. The VF is good enough to show DOF at 85/1.2 and longer lenses just fine. Eye control does NOT work for me with my glasses. I have tried many many times to calibrate it and it has never worked for me.

You can use AAs if you get the battery grip/power booster.

 

[John Bragg]

Nikon F100 or F5 would be ideal. Set for back button focus only and continuous focussing. That way you can precisely focus for static subjects or keep your thumb on the button to track moving subjects. Best of both worlds and deadly accurate for portraiture. Focus on the eyes and every one is a winner. I own both and that is how I use them.

 

[cooltouch]

I agree with those who said a Nikon F100. You have a larger amount of lenses available than Canon (including MF lenses) and it is much better constructed and sealed against weather.

That's not entirely true -- the 'sealed against weather' part. The F100 has a plastic back and because it is much thicker than a metal back, foam light seals aren't used for the back (too much pressure on the foam because of the extra back thickness). The slots the back sits in are deeper, resulting in light traps. But air can travel freely through the back crevices into the film chamber area. So this indicates that it really isn't "sealed," although the back construction probably isn't a large concern.

 

[GarageBoy]

I love how op states he has canon lenses, and everyone here is voting Nikon - get the 1v or 3, esp if you dont wanna buy more lens

 

[fstop]

"Push me toward an awesome, reliable 35mm camera that has autofocus"

He never said it had to be Canon.We are answering the question as asked.

 

[moodlover]

The vast majority of my out of focus shots come from cameras with auto-focus

just sayin'.............

Why is that? Your camera must not have good autofocus then or you are losing focus as you press the shutter. Maybe its a film camera problem, dunno. But on my 5D Mark III my focus hit-rate is 99% on wide open prime lenses. That camera is another beast though

 

[moodlover]

Okay guys thanks for the help. I am taking either the EOS-3 or the Nikon F100 into consideration. Would love to of course pick the better option of the two. I dont mind Nikon though would love to save money on this.

Here's a shallow depth-of-field F100 portrait on flickr I loved, does anyone know what lens would this be? And what the Canon equivalent is?

 

[OptiKen]

Why is that? Your camera must not have good autofocus then or you are losing focus as you press the shutter. Maybe its a film camera problem, dunno. But on my 5D Mark III my focus hit-rate is 99% on wide open prime lenses. That camera is another beast though

It just happened this weekend that a sudden flock of seagulls was giving me an excellent opportunity for some in-flight photos. I forgot that the little Pentax 110 I had with me was autofocus. I'm pretty sure you can guess why they were mostly out of focus. lol

 

[Les Sarile]

Okay guys thanks for the help. I am taking either the EOS-3 or the Nikon F100 into consideration. Would love to of course pick the better option of the two. I dont mind Nikon though would love to save money on this.

Here's a shallow depth-of-field F100 portrait on flickr I loved, does anyone know what lens would this be? And what the Canon equivalent is?

That is an appealing shot but one that won't require a fast autofocus given the setting. Dead on center so ECF not needed either. Also in this case the lens and aperture will play a greater role then the body selection.

 

[cooltouch]

Here's a shallow depth-of-field F100 portrait on flickr I loved, does anyone know what lens would this be? And what the Canon equivalent is?

I think you can get close to this with an 85mm f/1.8, maybe a 50mm f/1.4, but I would expect to see a bit more face distortion with a 50mm than an 85mm. I have a Canon FD 85mm f/1.8, which would probably do a good job with a subject like this. I would expect an EOS EF 85mm f/1.8 to give similar results.

 

[Fixcinater]

That shot sure looks like a 50/1.4 to me.

The Canon 50/1.4 is fine but the Sigma 50/1.4 non-art is not much more expensive and quite a bit better. The 50/1.8 II has noisy autofocus, the 50/1.8 STM is very good and cheap.

You can also use a large number of vintage M42 lenses with a cheap M42:EOS adapter, and a bit of tape on the EOS 3 lens switch inside the mirror chamber but then you lose all automation so it's not for everyone.

 

[Chan Tran]

I love how op states he has canon lenses, and everyone here is voting Nikon - get the 1v or 3, esp if you dont wanna buy more lens

Not everyone! I did told him to get an EOS-1v HS although it wouldn't kick any ass.

 

[Helinophoto]

I have the 1V and the EOS-30/Elan7 and I did have the EOS-3.

EOS-3: 95% viewfinder (I think). Sure, it's solid, quite fast, rugged, pretty heavy, good view-finder and eye-control which works alright after calibrating, since it has so many focus-points. AF is ok and pretty fast and accurate. It sort of looks like a beta 1V, but it doesn't have weather sealing to speak of. Instead of actual gaskets, it has "drainage-canals" in the plastic-composite shell around the camera, which will lead water away....but it doesn't really work in real-life (mine died from a short and very sudden rain-shower while I was out shooting and only had my t-shirt to cover it, which.....was disappointing). It cost me around $400 in 2005.

EOS-30/Elan7: Consumer-grade, small, plastic, light, eye-control focusing works ok after you have calibrated it, takes some time to get used to though...not sure about solidity although the build-quality itself is nice. (good controls, not very flimsy). AF isn't as good as the EOS-3 or 1V at all and it has less number of focus-points. Hunts more for focus in low light etc. Reminds me of a 450D/500D type of camera. I use mine when I want to go super-light with AF, it cost me $30 in 2013, remote shutter and printed manual included.

EOS 1V: King of the hill, 100% viewfinder, best and most accurate AF of the film-bodies, rugged, heavy (if you buy the battery-grip separately, so you can remove it, it becomes the size of your 5D III without a grip, I know, since I have that too). Same controls, look at feel as the 1ds MK II. (which I also have).
Solid weather-sealing (rubber gaskets all over, you can actually see some of them around the buttons on the most hated guy on the Internet's review here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos/1v.htm ),

Good customization options and it will survive wars and wildlife (proven, since it was used for that very purpose back in the day).

It cost me around $600 in 2005-2006 and I use the battery-pack that will also fit the EOS-3, which balance the camera with heavy lenses and gives you up to 10 fps. This will burn trough a roll in 3.6 seconds, if you are so inclined. ^^ (not sure about ass-kicking, but that will give your film-buying wallet a kick up the backside I suppose )

I've used mine for everything from birds in flight, to air-shows, to portraits and landscapes and it hasn't let me down yet.

I also have the link-hardware and software thing (bought new, separately), but it's not compatible with anything newer than Windows XP I think. The software enables you to adjust custom-functions trough the computer, as well as gather EXIF-data from your rolls, you browse trough your roll-numbers and get a list of settings per shot etc....I tried it, but found that I never used it anyway, so it's not really missed.

All cameras are fully compatible with your EF-lenses, why you would go Nikon when you have invested in Canon-lenses is weird, besides, if you look at sports, wildlife and reportage from the late 90's, you see 80% Canon and 10% Nikon (and 10% others I suppose), so, at least in the professional-domain, the pro Canon-bodies were preferred over Nikon, most likely because of the focusing-system and sealed, quality L-lenses.

I would definitely recommend a "dentist used" 1V if you can get hold of one, with removable grip.
Make sure you know the camera history, as some of them may have seen pretty heavy use (journalism, sports, wildlife etc).

The 1V prints the film-number before the very first frame on every film, so you are able to tell how many rolls the camera has been trough, mine had 32 rolls trough it (or 1032 lol ) when I bought it. It resets to 0 after 999 rolls. You can also check id and number of films trough the custom-functions menu: https://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/eos-1v-film-count-19600

 

[Sirius Glass]

The vast majority of my out of focus shots come from cameras with auto-focus

just sayin'.............

The proper term is Operator Assisted Failure [OAF].

 

[narsuitus]

I love how op states he has canon lenses, and everyone here is voting Nikon ...

That is because the original poster asked for an awesome and reliable camera.

 

[OptiKen]

The proper term is Operator Assisted Failure [OAF].

LOL
I wonder if I should get those initials added after my name: Ken Hooper, OAF
LOL

 

[jernejk]

I have 3 EOS cameras: 5, 300V and 300X (just bought this one). No complaints. 5 has eye focus, but IMHO it was really more of a selling point than a useful feature, I don't use it. I'm using the 300s more and more because they are light and compact. Eos 5 has one feature which I really miss with all other cameras and I don't understand why Canon removed it from the current lineup: focusing lamp.

I also chose EOS because I have a digital camera, so it's the only logical step. If I could go back to before I bought my digital, I would probably go with Nikon, but mixing the two systems at this stage makes no sense.

 

[Huss]

The Nikon F100 was the best 35mm slr that Nikon made feature-wise in an electronic camera. Some do find fault with it because the plastic back can be weak, but I never had a problem with the camera having a plastic body.

I have the F6 and the F100. The F100 is very nice, and very cheap. The F6 is nicer, and very expensive.

Someone mentioned F100s are in the $200-$300 range. I bought mine for $125 (saw the ad on Fredmiranda.com and jumped on it) and the real range is $150- $175.

To me, ignoring build quality, AF performance, meter performance, the F6's main advantages over the F100 are I can program the AE lock so it remains on until I turn it off, or the camera is turned off. The F100 releases the AE lock after an exposure. The F6 also has a much nicer VF with the best manual focus screen out there if you need it. If I need to override AF, I just spin the focus ring on the lens and the electronic AF aids in the VF are still active. With the F100 you can't do that if you want the aids. You need to flip the little lever to MF on the side of the camera first. And I can program it to leave the film leader out after rewinding. (As well as rewind manually to save batteries). Both my F100 and F6 use CR2s (the F100 came with that insert for the battery chamber) and the rechargeable batteries last 30+ rolls per charge.

But those are all reasons why the F6 is so much more expensive. I love my F100 and still cannot believe that you can get a camera this good for this little money. I briefly had an F4 before the F100 and hated it. Mainly the ergos - felt like holding a really big heavy bar of soap.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found that the Nikon F5 and Nikon F6 are heavy. If I am going to carry a heavy camera I will carry a Hasselblad. Back the 35mm, the above stated why I use the Nikon F100.

 

[moodlover]

Dumb question regarding EOS 3 vs F100:

I am seeing a lot of beautiful portraits made with the F100 online, example and example

Yet for some reason all the portraits I see with the EOS 3 dont look quite as good (not to my eye anyway). But a 50mm 1.4 on either camera should be able to pull identical pictures right (with the exception of some small grain changes or something)? Would the Nikkor lenses have vastly different color?

 

[MattKing]

Dumb question regarding EOS 3 vs F100:

I am seeing a lot of beautiful portraits made with the F100 online, example and example

Yet for some reason all the portraits I see with the EOS 3 dont look quite as good (not to my eye anyway). But a 50mm 1.4 on either camera should be able to pull identical pictures right (with the exception of some small grain changes or something)? Would the Nikkor lenses have vastly different color?

Those photos are striking, but they highlight (to me) why you normally don't want to use anything as short as a 50mm for close in portraits. In particular, the second example employs perspective that would be unflattering to about 99% of all subjects.

That being said, the qualities of those results have essentially nothing to do with the camera used, and very little to do with the lens (other than the relatively short focal length). Those qualities are the result of:
1) the subject;
2) the lighting; and
3) the choices made by the photographer.
Not necessarily in that order.
I've never found examples on the internet to be very useful when considering the strengths and weaknesses of a camera (with the exception of things like high speed sports work). Internet examples don't really tell you much about lenses either.

 

[moodlover]

I can understand that. Any reason why on other forums like to consider the Canon more of a sports camera and the Nikon more of a portrait/wedding camera?

 

[MattKing]

I can understand that. Any reason why on other forums like to consider the Canon more of a sports camera and the Nikon more of a portrait/wedding camera?

Because Canon markets(ed) heavily to sports photographers, and Nikon markets(ed) heavily to portrait and wedding photographers.
At the professional level, there may be more lens choice for one or the other in specific areas.
In general though, it tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy. If someone happens to use a particular brand, and gets good results, and those results become well known, others who are interested in those sorts of results tend to buy that brand, and of course some of them will get good results, etc., etc.
Do you even notice the brand if you don't find an internet photo interesting?
My favourite 35mm portrait photographer? Jane Bown. Who used with great effect one of my two favourite lenses, the Zuiko 85mm f/2:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2009/oct/18/jane-bown-60-years-portraits
There were probably some camera related advantages (size, weight, viewing system) for Ms. Bown inherent in the Olympus OM bodies she used, but I expect she would have created magic with anything she used.

 

[Helinophoto]

Dumb question regarding EOS 3 vs F100:

I am seeing a lot of beautiful portraits made with the F100 online, example and example

Yet for some reason all the portraits I see with the EOS 3 dont look quite as good (not to my eye anyway). But a 50mm 1.4 on either camera should be able to pull identical pictures right (with the exception of some small grain changes or something)? Would the Nikkor lenses have vastly different color?

Do a flickr-search and take a look: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=eos3

It's the lens, film-type, skill and post-processing that matters, the camera is simply an enabler, it doesn't influence the look.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can understand that. Any reason why on other forums like to consider the Canon more of a sports camera and the Nikon more of a portrait/wedding camera?

The photons in either situation will follow the same laws of physics.