Why no EOS love?

[grat]

I'm mildly trolling, and semi-serious-- I see lots of comments about Nikon's, I see occasional comments about the FD compatible bodies, but almost no one seems to have interest in the EOS bodies-- which have the advantage of taking modern EF lenses.

Is it a bias against electronic cameras, or is that they just don't look as sexy as a camera covered in leather and chrome?

I ask because I picked up an EOS 5 this week-- the idea of a full-feature film camera that works with 2/3's of my existing lenses was appealing, and this particular body is one of the last ones made (Jan. 2000, if I decoded the stamp correctly), in excellent condition, with a KEH warranty. While I paid a bit more because KEH said it was in excellent working order, it was still cheaper than most of 35mm cameras I see discussed on here.

And it's a really nice camera. I'm not sure how much I care about eye-controlled focus, but the eye-controlled DoF preview is very nice, and I could get used to it. It's got a full suite of "modern" bells and whistles-- and they can all be turned off if you like. If I had to make a complaint it's that there's no backlight for the LCD, and it can't be used with infrared film due to the frame counting mechanism.

 

[faberryman]

Perhaps there were not that many people who liked Andre Agassi so they didn't buy Canon EOS cameras. Or perhaps people like me were not interested in plastic blob cameras with LCDs. Canon wasn't alone in that regard. Nikon has had some plastic blob cameras with LCDs too, but had the good sense to also make some real cameras like the FM, FE, FM2, FE2, FM3A, F3, etc. I prefer a camera that looks like a camera, with as little plastic as possible, and definitely no LCD.

 

[Paul Howell]

I do have buyers regret, when my Sigma film bodies started to die a slow death from the dreaded yellowing of the viewfinder I bought Minolta A mount. I do like the A mount bodies, but in terms of lens the EOS EF full frame lens, all full frame EOS EF lens will work on all EOS bodies including optically stabilized. The Minolta mount evolved from 5 pin, to 8 pin then SSM or micro motor driven lens leaving the screw mount behind. Only the last model 7 and 5, perhaps the 3 will work with SSM lens, the 9 needed to be factory upgraded. Sony has killed the A mount bodies and lens, Canon although no longer developing the ES lens line is still producing EOS lens. In terms of lens selection, Canon covers all the bases, entry, mid level to L glass. From I have read some early Sigma lens had issues, current lens not so much. With an adaptor can be used on Sony and Canon mirrorless with full AF. In terms of bodies, like any brand need to be careful, I would want a EOS 1V with a N backup, maybe a 630 or 650 for walk around. Unlike the F4 and 5, the 1N can be made lighter by taking off the battery grip.

Not a lot of discussion, not much to talk about, great AF, great film drives, many bodies to think about.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I've never used an EOS camera but I recall from the first commercials that I saw on TV that the camera was too "modern" for my tastes. At the time, I was using my F-1 and AE-1. Since then, I've used several manual metal bodied cameras from Nikon, Pentax, and Canon. I still suspect the camera of not being as robust due to its plastic nature. That's irrational, I will admit. I'm sure if I used a loaner for a couple of months, my bias against plastic would be overcome. But I won't drop a dime on plastic while my metal bodied Canon, Nikon, and Pentax cameras serve me perfectly well. I love Canon cameras so it isn't the brand that puts me off. It isn't even Agassi since I admired his game from the beginning (when he had hair).
I would almost go buy an EOS body now as my conscience is pricked by your post. But that would mean buying more lenses too. I've also run out of room in my closet for yet another camera system.

 

[DWThomas]

Maybe it's just where my age fits into the history, but I have run (and still run) FD gear since 1981. In the mid-1990s I dropped my main camera (an A-1) out of a fanny pack and dented one end of the top. It seemed to sound a bit different, but still functioned. Being somewhat concerned, I thought hey, time to go modern and priced out an EOS body (don't recall what model). Alas, with a body and EF lenses vaguely equivalent to what I had I was looking well north of $1000 at the time. A work colleague gave me a flyer for a small used camera dealer that had a pretty good reputation and I bought another A-1 body in near-mint condition for about $150 as I recall, problem solved!

In this millennium I got interested in electrocuting bits and acquired a Canon A80 P&S. After getting my feet wet with that, I bought an EOS 40D in 2007 and acquired some EF and EF-S lenses. First, and primary workhorse lens was the 24-80 f/2.8L. Around the same time period I got into medium format film gear which was a fraction of its original cost. Every now and again since, I have thought about getting an EOS film body, but it just seems as though it's a waste of good money because I find I shoot very little 35mm film.

My latest acquisition (in late 2018) was an EOS M5 mirrorless which I bought with an 18-150 zoom which I've probably used greater than 90% of the time when traveling. But I did acquire adapters to use the EF and EF-S lenses which gives me full auto function, grabbed a 22mm f/2 EF-M which is almost a pancake type for rare compact use. Most recently, picked up a 7 Artisans 60mm f/2.8 totally manual macro lens which is intended for negative scans. I even have acquired an adapter to use FD lenses on the M5! Not something I plan to do much of, but I can.

So I have just bypassed EOS film bodies altogether.

 

[Paul Howell]

I did buy a T90 and a few FD lens, sold it as I had too many systems. The EOS 1 was in many respects based on the T90. In my case the EOS 1 would have a replacement for my Sigma SA 9. I have many all plastics bodies, AF and MF, Pentax, Minolta, Chinion, among others, never had an issue with the body failing. Well I take that back not the body but the winder for a Konica T4, one of the AA battery exploded and cracked the winder body.

 

[woodlandSerenade]

Is it a bias against electronic cameras, or is that they just don't look as sexy as a camera covered in leather and chrome?

It's the latter, in my opinion. The young peoples' gear fetishism seems to focus ( ) on cameras that are easily differentiated from today's (yesterday's?) DSLRs. How else would a passerby know that you, the genuine hobbyist, truly appreciate the real photographic process if not by the shape and styling of your camera? By braving the manual-focus wasteland, you are clearly a more capable and thoughtful artist.

Second-person strawman aside, most autofocus SLRs are too close to modern technology to be "cool". Canon's film EOS cameras are arguably the most consistently modern cameras. Control placement isn't all that different than a digital EOS camera, the two-wheel control layout has stayed the same since at least the EOS 1. There aren't really any quirks to learn, and unlike Nikon's newer F-mount lenses ALL of Canon's EF lenses are 100% compatible with ANY EOS body.

What still confuses me are why FD lenses are often more expensive than technically superior EF L lenses. i.e. 50mm f/1.2L or any of the FD aspherical lenses.
It must be rarity alone...

 

[grat]

Perhaps there were not that many people who liked Andre Agassi so they didn't buy Canon EOS cameras. Or perhaps people like me were not interested in plastic blob cameras with LCDs. Canon wasn't alone in that regard. Nikon has had some plastic blob cameras with LCDs too, but had the good sense to also make some real cameras like the FM, FE, FM2, FE2, FM3A, F3, etc. I prefer a camera that looks like a camera, with as little plastic as possible, and definitely no LCD.

I'm old enough to know who Andre Agassi is, although why you think he made Canon EOS cameras, I don't know.

On the other hand, speaking of sports photographers, you have images like this:

Where nearly everyone is packing "L" series glass. Pity their cameras weren't rugged enough for their profession.

But basically, I read your post as "I hate every camera made after 1980", which is reasonable... although I think there's probably at least one person mocking you, saying that any camera that isn't made out of wood, isn't a real camera.

 

[grat]

It's the latter, in my opinion. The young peoples' gear fetishism seems to focus ( ) on cameras that are easily differentiated from today's (yesterday's?) DSLRs. How else would a passerby know that you, the genuine hobbyist, truly appreciate the real photographic process if not by the shape and styling of your camera? By braving the manual-focus wasteland, you are clearly a more capable and thoughtful artist.

I wish that all I need is a mechanical SLR to make me a Great Photographic Influencer...

Don't get me wrong, my other SLR is a Konica Autoreflex T3, and I own more than one Speed Graphic, so I grok the aesthetic... but occasionally, you just want to take a picture with reliable hardware.

 

[faberryman]

I'm old enough to know who Andre Agassi is, although why you think he made Canon EOS cameras, I don't know.

I mentioned Andre Agassi not because I thought he made Canon EOS cameras, but because Canon used Andre Agassi in its advertising campaigns for its EOS cameras.

 

[Duceman]

Canon used Andre Agassi in its advertising campaigns for its EOS cameras.

lts Rebel line, no?

 

[Duceman]

I'm mildly trolling, and semi-serious-- I see lots of comments about Nikon's, I see occasional comments about the FD compatible bodies, but almost no one seems to have interest in the EOS bodies-- which have the advantage of taking modern EF lenses.

I sort of backed into the EOS line of film cameras. When I got back into photography a little over 15 years ago, I started off in digital with a Canon 20D (prior to that, I had learned film photography with a Minolta XD11). After picking up some L glass, I decided to get back into film as well. Picked up an EOS 3 off the Bay and thought it was a great camera. Ended up getting a few more EOS 3 bodies, and recently picked up a EOS 1N and EOS 5. I think they are all great, and have taken many a decent photo with them.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/drdufault-photography/albums/72157643522219965

 

[Helle]

My first SLR was a EOS 5000 and I loved it. But have to admit that I didn’t do any research whatsoever. I just went down to the camera store and bought what the salesman recommended. And if I remember correctly, I was totally unaware of aparture and shutter speed at the time. So could as well have bought a point&shoot.
Since then, I’ve used a EOS 400D and for years now a EOS 5D Mark II. So I stuck to my EOS (mainly becauseI didn’t want to start over and buy new lenses.).
But today, I do appreciate some of the old cameras with less plastic. But at the time, I couldn’t care less.

And I have to admit that I thought that Agassi was pretty hot. But had no idea he was sponsored by Canon, so it didn’t effect my choice. I swear.

 

[MattKing]

My dabbling in 35mm auto-focus involves Canon EOS film bodies. I got them for ridiculously little amounts of money.
The 3 - 5 bodies I've had (now down to 3) are extraordinarily good, in particular the ones with eye control focus, but it doesn't make sense for me to invest the money in the higher end EF lenses - for 35mm I have really good Zuiko lenses instead.
And it doesn't help that I have three different models, and they are named in three different ways. The Rebel 2000 is the only one that I get the name right without checking.
Not to mention the complexity of their differing battery requirements.
For those reasons, I don't post about them a lot.
Although the 40mm f/2.8 EF STM pancake lens is really nice, and the quirky but intriguing 22-55 mm EF lens that was designed for the ES 1-X series APS film SLR (but fully compatible with full frame 35mm EOS film bodies) is really fun.

 

[Paul Howell]

I'm old enough to know who Andre Agassi is, although why you think he made Canon EOS cameras, I don't know.

On the other hand, speaking of sports photographers, you have images like this:

Where nearly everyone is packing "L" series glass. Pity their cameras weren't rugged enough for their profession.

But basically, I read your post as "I hate every camera made after 1980", which is reasonable... although I think there's probably at least one person mocking you, saying that any camera that isn't made out of wood, isn't a real camera.

It wasn't the lens, it was the AF, Canon with micro motor lens from the beginning outclassed Nikon and Minolta, by the time Nikon and Minolta caught up it was too late.

 

[DMJ]

quirky but intriguing 22-55 mm EF l

I have the Rebel 2000 and a 5D ii. I use them mostly with the 40mm STM pancake and several m42 Pentax Takumar lenses. Thinking on getting a standard zoom, any recommendations in addition to the 22-55mm?

 

[MattKing]

I have the Rebel 2000 and a 5D ii. I use them mostly with the 40mm STM pancake and several m42 Pentax Takumar lenses. Thinking on getting a standard zoom, any recommendations in addition to the 22-55mm?

I'm probably not the best to ask.
I would lean to something designed for the digital body, and I don't own any Canon digital equipment since I sold the 10D, followd by an XTi (I think) that I bought really cheap to experiment with. Both have long been sold. When I feel a digital need, either cel phones or my wife's really neat Olympus OMD micro 4/3 camera fulfils that for me.

 

[Cholentpot]

EOS outclassed just about everything when it came to autofocus. Function over form. If you wanted to nail a photo every single time you got a Canon. If you had a backlog of Nikon lenses and wanted compatibility you got a Nikon.

 

[Paul Howell]

EOS outclassed just about everything when it came to autofocus. Function over form. If you wanted to nail a photo every single time you got a Canon. If you had a backlog of Nikon lenses and wanted compatibility you got a Nikon.

Pros traded in their Nikon gear in droves for EOS, wire services, newspapers, even Nat Geo turned to Canon. Once the wires, Newspapers moved to Canon the shooters followed. It was joked that the F4 was the best MF camera Nikon ever made. Minolta was pretty close to Canon but no cigar, Pentax was only OK. Compatiblity was not an issue, what was the point of having a AF body and still shoot with MF lens. Canon just got it right. Once you had a Canon AF lens set, no matter how good Nikon got later with the F5, what was the point of switching back to Nikon?

 

[donotpaint]

A good number of 35mm EOS bodies suffer from a common issue with their shutter. There is a foam dampener that is known to deteriorate and gunk up the blades. The result is that some frames look good, some frames are only half exposed, and some aren't exposed at all. My Rebel S had this issue. It can be fixed fairly easily with lighter fluid and patience, but it has the potential to ruin a camera. This is probably a contributing factor as to why people aren't very interested in analog EOS systems.

 

[Cholentpot]

Pros traded in their Nikon gear in droves for EOS, wire services, newspapers, even Nat Geo turned to Canon. Once the wires, Newspapers moved to Canon the shooters followed. It was joked that the F4 was the best MF camera Nikon ever made. Minolta was pretty close to Canon but no cigar, Pentax was only OK. Compatiblity was not an issue, what was the point of having a AF body and still shoot with MF lens. Canon just got it right. Once you had a Canon AF lens set, no matter how good Nikon got later with the F5, what was the point of switching back to Nikon?

From the first to the last EOS 35mm bodies all more or less perform perfectly. And they function exactly the same as their digital counterparts. I have a collection of Nikon AF cameras. Aside from the confusing lens nomenclature, the earlier consumer bodies are dogs and the lenses are slow heavy and annoying. Compare an early 90's EOS to a Nikon and it's no match.

A good number of 35mm EOS bodies suffer from a common issue with their shutter. There is a foam dampener that is known to deteriorate and gunk up the blades. The result is that some frames look good, some frames are only half exposed, and some aren't exposed at all. My Rebel S had this issue. It can be fixed fairly easily with lighter fluid and patience, but it has the potential to ruin a camera. This is probably a contributing factor as to why people aren't very interested in analog EOS systems.

I've not run into this issue yet. I have run into this issue with crumbling gooey foam in just about all manual SLRs though.

 

[ozphoto]

I started out with FD gear and built up a fantastic sports kit with new and used glass and used bodies. My F1 (Old) was built like a tank and was my prime sports body, the A1 was my backup and daily shooter. I have seller's regret that I got rid of this kit, but work demanded AF as digital arrived, and running two kits was pointless, not to mention expensive - I had to replace the gear and selling did offset some of this.

Nikon was able to continue to use their glass with both systems, while Canon completely rebuilt from the ground up. The comments above that numerous news outlets etc is not an exaggeration, I know of many news photographers and pros who were originally Nikon users and swapped to EF almost as soon as they could.

Given that FD is probably the go-to kit for film shooters wanting to use Canon gear (it's cheaper), it's not surprising that EF gear isn't mentioned as often. Additionally, with the whole AF craze hitting, FD equipment became dirt cheap in the early days, including the non-OEM gear (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma etc) as everyone appeared to want the latest and greatest AF gear, and offloaded this stuff as fast as they could.

Or it could be something as simple as Canon EOS users not needing to discuss how *awesome* their gear is because they are comfortable in themselves and know they have the far better kit. (For the record I couldn't care less what gear I use, I'm currently shooting with a 1950s Agfa Clack, a Kodak Junior 620 folder from about 1918, an Art Deco Box Brownie and a myriad of other gear too, including an EOS1n and Tamron adaptall glass.)

 

[gone]

I had a Rebel once and it was fine for what it was. That crappy 35-80 kit zoom actually made decent photos, but the batteries were expensive.

This is only a guess, but the EOS cameras are often sorta shapeless, black or silver plastic blobs. That's a little different than a Nikkormat. Canon also pissed off a lot of people w/ that lens mount thing, and there's quite a few EOS models that have sticky shutters that can't be fixed.

For me, the real issue is that many of the EOS camera won't meter right when you use non Canon, manual focus lenses. The Leica R lens on my Nikon n8008s meters perfectly, even in spot, and that $30 Nikon camera is a better tool than any of the Leica R SLR cameras, from the R3 to the R7. After that, they got as big as MF cameras.

 

[Zenzanon Fan]

Had various FD models in the past but the only EOS model I had was an EOS3 that I got boxed and mint for a song. Technically an amazing camera but it never felt right in the hand, the grip was just far too big to be comfortable and that was the standard grip not the booster one. Decided to sell it on as it just felt uncomfortable.

I still have a T90 and it felt soooooo much better in hand compared to the EOS3, and the Canon digital bodies I have tried.

 

[Cholentpot]

I had a Rebel once and it was fine for what it was. That crappy 35-80 kit zoom actually made decent photos, but the batteries were expensive.

This is only a guess, but the EOS cameras are often sorta shapeless, black or silver plastic blobs. That's a little different than a Nikkormat. Canon also pissed off a lot of people w/ that lens mount thing, and there's quite a few EOS models that have sticky shutters that can't be fixed.

For me, the real issue is that many of the EOS camera won't meter right when you use non Canon, manual focus lenses. The Leica R lens on my Nikon n8008s meters perfectly, even in spot, and that $30 Nikon camera is a better tool than any of the Leica R SLR cameras, from the R3 to the R7. After that, they got as big as MF cameras.

EF lenses are far cheaper than Nikon lenses though. Also, using some lenses with an EOS system that was not designed for the EOS system will cause the battery to drain really really fast I've learned.