Why no EOS love?

[MattKing]

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

Yes and no.
They will work as cameras. But with some lenses and adapters, the metering system won't give accurate results.

 

[Anon Ymous]

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.

Yes and no.
They will work as cameras. But with some lenses and adapters, the metering system won't give accurate results.

I've tried adapters on EOS 30, 33V and 300V cameras, one being an OM to EF with focus confirmation and a plain M42 without confirmation. IIRC, the M42 one gave weird meter readings, but otherwise worked ok. The OM one seemed to give correct focus confirmation considering the image in the finder, but the camera seemed to freak out when taking the shot. It seemed to fire, but the lcd blinked and had to be half pressed again to get it to get back to a normal state. The same adapter, when used with a 450D and a 6D works perfectly.

Regardless of this, EOS cameras are awesome and many of the can be had for not much money. And the vast number of EF lenses, all of them being compatible with any body, is a huge bonus IMHO. Canon perhaps made many FD mount users angry when they suddenly obsoleted this mount, but they made the right choice.

 

[Tony-S]

Canon perhaps made many FD mount users angry when they suddenly obsoleted this mount, but they made the right choice.

I can sell my FDn 135mm f/2 and buy an EF 135mm f/2L and maybe have a few dollars left over. The price of these FD lenses are crazy high right now.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I can sell my FDn 135mm f/2 and buy an EF 135mm f/2L and maybe have a few dollars left over. The price of these FD lenses are crazy high right now.

They can be used on several mirrorless cameras with the right adapter, so FD mount lenses have become much more expensive lately...

 

[Tony-S]

They can be used on several mirrorless cameras with the right adapter, so FD mount lenses have become much more expensive lately...

Yup. I use mine on my Fuji X-T4. I have a couple of cheap adapters, plus one Metabones focal reducer. Won't be selling any of my FD lenses anytime soon!

 

[Tony-S]

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 think I jinxed my EOS 3. This weekend, the shutter quit firing mid-roll. Ugh.

 

[Laurent]

I think I jinxed my EOS 3. This weekend, the shutter quit firing mid-roll. Ugh.

When mine did this, at least in the beginning, this affected only the high Spears, 1/2000 ans higher IIRC

 

[AndroclesC]

My primary gear has been EOS since I started photography in '94. Ok, since I started "serious" photography in '94 because I actually started enthusiastically shooting in the mid '70s with my trusty Kodak X-15 Instamatic, but that's a story for another thread. Within the EOS system I started with the EOS A2 (still have it), lusted seriously after the EOS 3, and then moved to the EOS 1vHS, an absolutely incredible camera. In 2003 I got the 10D and proceeded on up the line through the 20D, 30D, 40D, and then the 7D, another amazing camera. Then the full-frame bug bit and I got the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII, and now the utterly amazing EOS R6. I have EOS love by the ton! Not to say that I don't like other brands though. I've owned almost as many Nikon bodies as Canon bodies and while I really like the ones that I still have (D200, D300, F100) I much prefer the user interface of Canon EOS and the AF in Canon, especially now with the R6. I did pick up an EOS 3 about a month ago to see what I missed back then. It's a joy to use, even just to handle. Now if you want to talk about manual cameras, I have owned most bodies of the major brands, but that is also a conversation for another thread, and maybe a couple or 5 pints of something strong.

Andy

 

[grat]

I actually started enthusiastically shooting in the mid '70s with my trusty Kodak X-15 Instamatic

First picture I ever took that made me think I knew what I was doing was with an X-15. And a flashcube.

 

[wiltw]

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.

Not right to blame AF for the tiny viewfinders. Blame that on all the information presented within the viewfinder...the focus screen magnification had to shrink in order to make space for the information displayed all around. The Olymput OM-1 had an immense viewfinder magnification while the OM-4 was tiny by comparison, and both where manual focus cameras.

Back to OP topic, I was an Olympus OM system user and I decided to try a Canon EOS camera to see how I liked AF back in the 1990s. I remember that i was not really impressed enough to keep the camera, although admittedly the model that I tried was not middle- or top-of-line, which might have been why I was not impressed enough to stick with upgrading. It took another 10 years, with the digital EOS, before I became a convert.

 

[Paul Howell]

Best AF viewfinder, the Minolta 7000.

 

[Cholentpot]

Not right to blame AF for the tiny viewfinders. Blame that on all the information presented within the viewfinder...the focus screen magnification had to shrink in order to make space for the information displayed all around. The Olymput OM-1 had an immense viewfinder magnification while the OM-4 was tiny by comparison, and both where manual focus cameras.

Back to OP topic, I was an Olympus OM system user and I decided to try a Canon EOS camera to see how I liked AF back in the 1990s. I remember that i was not really impressed enough to keep the camera, although admittedly the model that I tried was not middle- or top-of-line, which might have been why I was not impressed enough to stick with upgrading. It took another 10 years, with the digital EOS, before I became a convert.

I have the lowest level EOS and it performs as well as the top tier. It's missing a bunch of features but it does what it needs to do when it counts.

 

[bluechromis]

I have a Canon Elan 7, a more sophisticated camera as well as a Canon Rebel G. The Rebel G has to be at the top of the list that camera snobs love to hate. It just doesn't have cool factors of looking vintage or anything else. But I think objectively that disdain is unjustified especially from a costs/benefits point of view. The body is very light. With an EF 50 mm, f/1.8 is like a feather. With a pancake lens would be even less. It is surprisingly quiet for a motor drive camera. I am getting older and my eyes are weaker. In a number of recent rolls with manual focus cameras the biggest cause of failure was not exposure or composition, but focus. It irritates me, but autofocus lenses do focus better than I can with manual focus lenses, especially with dynamic scenes or low light. The EOS cameras have some advantages. On mine, they support, to a degree, second curtain flash. They have a higher shutter speed than classic manual focus cameras tend to have as well as a higher flash sync speed. They have a sophisticated metering system, especially important when shooting E-6. I don't know for sure if lens coatings have improved since the '80s, but would be surprised if they haven't. Not everyone likes TTL flash, but it does make strobe shooting more foolproof if one doesn't want to get into the intricacies of lighting. Then is the prejudice that anything plastic must be bad and will fall apart in no time. In my experience, this concern is overstated. For many average users, it is not an issue, and if there was a failure the replacement cost would be low.

 

[alanrockwood]

It's probably fair to point out that when the EOS line of cameras came out a lot of pros (probably the majority of them) ended up switching from Nikon to Canon. I think most of them weren't purists or camera snobs. They just found that Canon helped them to do their job better than their previous gear, so they switched. I think this may have been especially true for sports photographers. When image stabilization came a long it just cemented the change. Correct me if I am wrong.

At the other end of the film SLR world I believe the the Canon Rebel 2000 (under its various names around the world) ended up being selling more 35mm SLR cameras than any 35mm SLR camera model in history, not just among the Canon brand but among all brands. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Cholentpot]

It's probably fair to point out that when the EOS line of cameras came out a lot of pros (probably the majority of them) ended up switching from Nikon to Canon. I think most of them weren't purists or camera snobs. They just found that Canon helped them to do their job better than their previous gear, so they switched. I think this may have been especially true for sports photographers. When image stabilization came a long it just cemented the change. Correct me if I am wrong.

At the other end of the film SLR world I believe the the Canon Rebel 2000 (under its various names around the world) ended up being selling more 35mm SLR cameras than any 35mm SLR camera model in history, not just among the Canon brand but among all brands. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

Got one. The 500N version. Does 95% of what the top o' the line guys do and it's much lighter and smaller.

 

[foc]

They just found that Canon helped them to do their job better than their previous gear, so they switched. I think this may have been especially true for sports photographers. When image stabilization came a long it just cemented the change.

Exactly.
As I said in a previous post, the Canon lenses really made a big difference.

The Canon had ultra sonic motors for the autofocus in the lens NOT shaft driven. This made the autofocus super fast and, most importantly, accurate. Add image stabilization and you have the near-perfect package.

Ok it was also good that the camera bodies were robust in the pro range but IMO it was the Canon lenses, especially the L range, that was the reason for many a professional to change to Canon

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ok it was also good that the camera bodies were robust in the pro range but IMO it was the Canon lenses, especially the L range, that was the reason for many a professional to change to Canon

From the perspective of someone using Nikon gear like myself the range and availability of Canon 'L' lenses does look impressive.

 

[Les Sarile]

Not right to blame AF for the tiny viewfinders. Blame that on all the information presented within the viewfinder...the focus screen magnification had to shrink in order to make space for the information displayed all around. The Olymput OM-1 had an immense viewfinder magnification while the OM-4 was tiny by comparison, and both where manual focus cameras.

I was just making a casual observation and assumed that since all AF cameras have tiny magnification viewfinders that must be because for the most part they rely on the AF to achieve critical focus. From all I have seen, it seems the high magnification manual focus cameras are in the minority. I mean even in the interchangeable viewfinder versions, I've only found one that offered an actual range from low to high.

I have the OM1 - 4 and it is a shame that the 3 & 4 went with smaller VF magnification.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Canon had ultra sonic motors for the autofocus in the lens NOT shaft driven. This made the autofocus super fast and, most importantly, accurate. Add image stabilization and you have the near-perfect package.

I think it was more the sensors and chip set than the micro motors, Sigma uses micro motor driven lens as well and my early Minolta gear driven lens are faster and the AF is just a bit behind Canon, much better than Sigma. Canon got the packet right. Minolta lost a 100 million dollar patent law suite to Honeywell, don't think Minolta ever really recovered.

 

[wiltw]

I was just making a casual observation and assumed that since all AF cameras have tiny magnification viewfinders that must be because for the most part they rely on the AF to achieve critical focus. From all I have seen, it seems the high magnification manual focus cameras are in the minority. I mean even in the interchangeable viewfinder versions, I've only found one that offered an actual range from low to high.

I have the OM1 - 4 and it is a shame that the 3 & 4 went with smaller VF magnification.

We know beam splitting in dSLR forced the less-accurate focus screen because the camera manufacturers needed to keep the focus screen brighter. But it certainly was the 'a lot of info' display in the viewfinder which caused the decrease in apparent magnification of the image area in the SLR about 5 decades ago.

 

[foc]

I think it was more the sensors and chip set than the micro motors, Sigma uses micro motor driven lens as well

That may be correct. I do know that when I shot professionally with Canon L lens and Sigma, the autofocus with the Canon was super fast and spot on every time. The Sigma was slightly slower and missed the odd time. That to me would suggest the lens motors and not the sensors and chips.
An out of focus or soft image is, professionally, a missed, unsalable shot. Second or third doesn't count.

 

[Tony-S]

I think it was more the sensors and chip set than the micro motors, Sigma uses micro motor driven lens as well...

Sigma had two motor technologies: micro motor and hypersonic motor (HSM). Their HSM was on-par with Canon's USM, but not quite as fast. I have a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro with a micro motor and it's loud, slow and occasionally hunts. I also have a few Sigma lenses with HSM and they are near silent, speedy and accurate, especially on mirrorless cameras.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've shot early 90's Nikon and Canon plastics side by side. The Nikon is loud and hunts, the Canon is quiet and rarely if ever hunts. I wasn't around for the big change, I was losing my first teeth, but I can see why pros jumped ship.

 

[Paul Howell]

Sigma had two motor technologies: micro motor and hypersonic motor (HSM). Their HSM was on-par with Canon's USM, but not quite as fast. I have a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro with a micro motor and it's loud, slow and occasionally hunts. I also have a few Sigma lenses with HSM and they are near silent, speedy and accurate, especially on mirrorless cameras.

I was talking about the bodies, SA 7 and 9, the only 2 film AF bodies Sigma made. Sigma used a basic K type mount, unlike Pentax who used gear drive Sigma used micromotors, a very close match to Canon, some Sigma claimed that they swapped out the Sigma mount for a cheap Canon Rebel mount, reports varied from full functioned lens to lens that would not AF but would meter. My later Sigma lens are pretty fast on Sigma digital body, early lens, high end are pretty fast, low end, small motors are not very fast. My SA 9 was made in 2001, single focus point, by that time Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax had moved to 3 or more focus points. On the other hand, if not shooting action the SA 7 and 9 are pretty good, lots of features. Downside, the viewfinders are dying the yellow death.

 

[Les Sarile]

We know beam splitting in dSLR forced the less-accurate focus screen because the camera manufacturers needed to keep the focus screen brighter. But it certainly was the 'a lot of info' display in the viewfinder which caused the decrease in apparent magnification of the image area in the SLR about 5 decades ago.

As I look at my collection of manual focus SLRs, a good majority of them are less than 0.9X magnification and even more rare are those above 0.95X like the OM1 and MX. Long before crowded info viewfinders it seems the industry found their compromise of eye relief vs magnification.