Why no EOS love?

[flavio81]

Keep quiet and buy that gear while the prices are low!

 

[faberryman]

Indeed these are all very different in terms of functionality and choice may be dictated by the purpose. If the use requires 10fps then the choice is easy . . .

That cheerleader shot is not so great. Eadweard Muybridge managed to do those kind of shots without a Canon EOS a 100 years before. Speaking of Eadweard Muybridge, here is a fun fact to know and tell I ran across in Wikipedia: "In 1874, Muybridge shot and killed Major Harry Larkyns, his wife's lover, but was acquitted in a jury trial on the grounds of justifiable homicide." Probably didn't need a Canon EOS for that either. He was a pretty versatile guy. No word on what he did to his wife.

 

[faberryman]

I think we've established in this thread that today's appearance-obsessed hipsters want a camera that looks like a manual camera, not a DSLR, and so shallowly scorns the EOS. Also that Photrio's traditionalist wing eschews blobby plastic cameras for the reliability of good old metal, and so profoundly scorns the EOS.

I am trying to figure out if I am an appearance-obsessed hipster or a Photrio traditionalist profoundly scorning the EOS. I am going to go with Photrio traditionalist because I don't shop for clothes at Goodwill. And I never said you couldn't make great photographs with a camera that looks like a grapefruit with a couple of tumors. Think of all the great songwriters who wore plaid bell bottom pants. Like the Canon EOS, they were not fashion's finest hour.

Just to be serious for a split-second, was the trend toward autofocus driven by photographers or camera manufacturers? I never had any trouble focusing until I got a digital camera with an autofocus lens. Now I've got about a half dozen menu options and I still have to trick the lens into focusing on what I want it to. I remember buying my first digital camera. The guy at the camera shop handed it to me to try out, so I held it up to my eye and I started turning the lens and nothing happened. I sort of looked at him and he said I needed to turn it on first and then it would automatically focus on the wrong thing. No wonder so many old people buy digital Leicas.

 

[Tony-S]

I think we've established in this thread that today's appearance-obsessed hipsters want a camera that looks like a manual camera, not a DSLR, and so shallowly scorns the EOS. Also that Photrio's traditionalist wing eschews blobby plastic cameras for the reliability of good old metal, and so profoundly scorns the EOS.

I guess I fall in the "traditionalist" camp. At any rate, I have F-1n, F-1N AE and A-1 FD cameras, and EOS A2E and EOS 3 EF cameras. The curvy body style of the EF cameras originated with the T-90 FD camera. Much of it was about ergonomics; I think the EOS cameras are much more comfortable. And all this problem talk about the "plastic" used on these cameras is grossly overstated. If they can build these using "plastic" (composite polymers):

Then, surely they can be good enough for cameras.

I use my FD cameras more (F-1N, mostly) simply because I have a lot more FD lenses - something like 9 or 10, vs. 2 EF lenses.

 

[Les Sarile]

That cheerleader shot is not so great. Eadweard Muybridge managed to do those kind of shots without a Canon EOS a 100 years before. Speaking of Eadweard Muybridge, here is a fun fact to know and tell I ran across in Wikipedia: "In 1874, Muybridge shot and killed Major Harry Larkyns, his wife's lover, but was acquitted in a jury trial on the grounds of justifiable homicide." Probably didn't need a Canon EOS for that either. He was a pretty versatile guy.

LOL, I suppose I could have used 8 cameras to take that sequence shot. Probably require copious amounts of post work to remove all tye detail!

That bearded portrait of him is epic!

 

[Tony-S]

This is not to depsise the EOS3, as it was a very capable camera that I really liked, but it's more a computer that photographs than a camera (yes I also had an EOS 7D, and it was worse in terms of settings).

The use of a "computer" on these cameras was a huge advance because it allowed change of mechanical linkages to electronic linkages (e.g., command dial, micromotors, relays, etc.).

I sold the EOS 3 because the shutter developed the same issue as my T90 and I did not want to pay for a new shutter as I did for the T90, and my only regret is that I should have bought a F1New (I really balanced at this time) which most likely would still work like a charm. I don't know if all EOS bodies have the same shutter issue or if I was unlucky.

The T-90 and EOS 3 were notorious for problems with the magnetic shutter release. I was able to buy my EOS 3 for something like US$50 because the owner said it was broken. After banging the camera a few dozen times on my carpeted floor, the shutter started working again. I gave it a lot of exercise by tripping the shutter a few hundred times and since then I have not had the shutter freeze occur.

 

[Cholentpot]

No, the back has the AF switch that changes the AF from narrow to wide and the AEL and meter modes. I really like my 600, one of favs for travel. I should spend the money and get the battery grip.

Off to the 'bay!

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, no, pulled out my 600, popped in a fresh battery, dead, nothing.

 

[Les Sarile]

For all that I'd say the EOS weighs as much as the MX. Although the MX is one of the smallest SLRs designed. Compare the EOS to an F4 or F3 with an MD.

The EOS 1V 945g, EOS 1 850g, EOS 3 780g and the MX at 499g so the MX is much lighter.

 

[Les Sarile]

Keep quiet and buy that gear while the prices are low!

I bought my EOS 1VHS by local CL from a local PD's forensic lab - in like new condition, for $50 a few years ago.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, no, pulled out my 600, popped in a fresh battery, dead, nothing.

Well that's just great ain't it?

The EOS 1V 945g, EOS 1 850g, EOS 3 780g and the MX at 499g so the MX is much lighter.

Right, now pop a lens on and see how it balances out. 50mm on either.

 

[Laurent]

The use of a "computer" on these cameras was a huge advance because it allowed change of mechanical linkages to electronic linkages (e.g., command dial, micromotors, relays, etc.).
.

I agree on the advance it represents, but in the end it made photography less fun for me since it implied so much control. I'm much happier using a mechanical camera and messing some shots.

The T-90 and EOS 3 were notorious for problems with the magnetic shutter release. I was able to buy my EOS 3 for something like US$50 because the owner said it was broken. After banging the camera a few dozen times on my carpeted floor, the shutter started working again. I gave it a lot of exercise by tripping the shutter a few hundred times and since then I have not had the shutter freeze occur.

I tried this on mine with no results, it worked but unreliabky. My Ae1P had one CLA in 40 years ( mainly to fix the squeak) and still works fine.

 

[reddesert]

Just to be serious for a split-second, was the trend toward autofocus driven by photographers or camera manufacturers? I never had any trouble focusing until I got a digital camera with an autofocus lens. Now I've got about a half dozen menu options and I still have to trick the lens into focusing on what I want it to. I remember buying my first digital camera. The guy at the camera shop handed it to me to try out, so I held it up to my eye and I started turning the lens and nothing happened. I sort of looked at him and he said I needed to turn it on first and then it would automatically focus on the wrong thing. No wonder so many old people buy digital Leicas.

People who wanted to focus on moving subjects, like professional photographers, amateur sports, taking pictures of your kids. Personally, I am happy with manual focus most of the time, and the shutter lag on non-SLR AF cameras bugs me. But it wasn't a conspiracy foisted on the consumer by camera manufacturers. In the late 80s-early 90s, all the 35mm manufacturers that didn't develop a capable AF SLR system had to abandon the business. Even the makers of professional MF SLRs eventually went autofocus or tried to.

 

[alanrockwood]

Frankly, I like 'em. I have several EOS bodies, maybe too many.

 

[johnsb2]

Seems like I'm in the minority, but EOS is basically all I've used since 2000. Picked up a 3 back in 2009 and it's been my main body to go with a nice set of primes since.

 

[Les Sarile]

You can even use manual focus Olympus OM lenses (has focus confirmation with the right adapter) as well as the Varimamifinder . . .

EOS1 OM by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Anon Ymous]

You can even use manual focus Olympus OM lenses (has focus confirmation with the right adapter) as well as the Varimamifinder . . .

EOS1 OM by Les DMess, on Flickr

Not with all EOS bodies though, some are incompatible with these adapters.

 

[halfaman]

The EOS 1V 945g, EOS 1 850g, EOS 3 780g and the MX at 499g so the MX is much lighter.

Canon EOS 1000FN/Rebel SII 470g

 

[Tony-S]

You can even use manual focus Olympus OM lenses (has focus confirmation with the right adapter) as well as the Varimamifinder . . .

I should get a couple of M42 to EF mount adapters for my 6 Pentax lenses just to see how they do.

 

[Paul Howell]

Pentax primes will do really well, even the single coated Pentax M42 primes will be sharp corner to corner, early zooms on the other hand will not do as well, most of the 60s zooms could only resolve around a 100LPM.

 

[Duceman]

Seems like I'm in the minority...

Not if you're talking about sales. In that regard, it would seem that the EOS h8ers are the ones in the minority.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I guess I fall in the "traditionalist" camp. At any rate, I have F-1n, F-1N AE and A-1 FD cameras, and EOS A2E and EOS 3 EF cameras. The curvy body style of the EF cameras originated with the T-90 FD camera. Much of it was about ergonomics; I think the EOS cameras are much more comfortable. And all this problem talk about the "plastic" used on these cameras is grossly overstated. If they can build these using "plastic" (composite polymers):

View attachment 297134

Then, surely they can be good enough for cameras.

I use my FD cameras more (F-1N, mostly) simply because I have a lot more FD lenses - something like 9 or 10, vs. 2 EF lenses.

There are still a lot of metal bits on that airplane. It sure does look nice flying over my mountain. Mt. Rainier, of course. And to be perfectly frank, it's only a mountain I climbed once. I think it's owned by someone else.

 

[Les Sarile]

Right, now pop a lens on and see how it balances out. 50mm on either.

I've never understood where this comes from since these are - for the most part, not fixed lens cameras and the range of lenses can be small and light to extremely large and heavy.

 

[Les Sarile]

Not with all EOS bodies though, some are incompatible with these adapters.

No doubt there are differences in AF algorithms between the top of the line to the other. With the EOS3, I tried a cheap 2X tele + 70-200mm f2.8 L and it can autofocus just fine but not so with a Rebel I had.

 

[Les Sarile]

I should get a couple of M42 to EF mount adapters for my 6 Pentax lenses just to see how they do.

For me the tiny viewfinder magnifications of all AF cameras makes focus confirm important. In hundreds of rolls shot with the EOS3, I never once missed critical focus and quickly with my L lenses.