|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Photography >> Film Equipment Canon
EOS 3 and EOS 1v & Assorted Lenses
As a Nikon user, I have always been intrigued by the Canon offerings and wondered just how good they really are in relation to my own Nikon products. I had written some musings about the Nikon versus Canon thing some years ago; however, from the perspective of hearsay and secondhand knowledge of the Canon system. I did have the opportunity to try out a mid-level Canon kit (Elan II) and although I found it to be a decent enough performer with enough Canon technology to provide a taste of the forbidden fruit, as a mid-level kit, it was not something I would have paid out my own money for. What I really wanted was a chance to try out the top of the line cameras and lenses from Canon and see what these products were about. My opinion was that if you are going to do a switch from one brand to another, you had better make it worth your while. Going from one mid-level system to another would be nothing more than pissing away good money down the toilet. When I had thoughts about doing a switch from Nikon to Canon I realized that at minimum I would have to look at an EOS 3 based kit with some L series zoom lenses to make the switch worthwhile. Even better would be an EOS 1v based kit, but how could I even determine if the Canon system would be a worthwhile enough contender if I had no opportunity to try it out. I’m not a professional with deep pockets or tax write-off abilities. Any change over would require massive amounts of my own money, after-tax discretionary income at that, which makes such a move even more distasteful, financially speaking that is. Well, thanks to my friendship with one Larry Rotta, who happens to be a Canon user, I had my chance. Larry generously provided almost his entire kit to me for a two-week period to allow me to write this review.  Kit
as Tested Larry likes the good stuff and although he does not own a plethora of lenses, the three zoom lenses he does own are Canon’s finest. Three EOS bodies with three 550EX flashes and three lenses to choose from, I was a kid in a candy store. I borrowed:
Fine
Print and Disclaimer Although I have a very fine Nikon F100 body to compare directly to the Canon bodies, not every one of my lenses is directly comparable to the Canon L lenses. I have no compunction about throwing up my 35-70mm f2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 lenses into the mix for comparison purposes, but my wide-angle zoom is the budget 18-35mm, so not entirely fair to put it up against the latest and greatest Canon 16-35mm. However, when has life ever been fair? Onwards we go. EOS
3 It is predominantly polycarbonate; read, plastic, and regular readers will know that I have allergic reactions to plastic cameras. This purely a subjective bias on my part and I admit that it has no real objective merit; however, so much of what we do is based upon our subjectivity that I make no apologies for my biases. I suppose the usual suspect reasons about why I don’t like plastic cameras rise to the surface: Less durable than metal cameras – but this is really suspect when you hear that the British Royal Navy uses polycarbonate material and I believe the cockpit canopies of fighter jets use polycarbonate too, so the plastic could literally be bulletproof and yet this will still not convince some traditionalists. Cheap feel – now this one is obviously subjective, but this does have merit because look at a well used EOS 3 and compare it to the EOS 1v and there is no contest which is the ugly duckling of the lot and which I would prefer to handle on a regular basis. Let us
also consider that there are a number of photojournalists using the
EOS 3 for their bread and butter and in some very harsh environments
such as
So, the EOS 3 is indeed a rugged camera that has proven itself in the field in hands that would treat it far rougher than Larry and I could inflict upon it. Thus, I had to throw my preconceptions and biases out the window and look at the EOS 3 for its own merits. The EOS 3 has good heft to it. Polycarbonate or not, this is not a lightweight camera like the Elan series. It shares an almost identical control layout as the EOS 1v and from what I’ve read, as the highly regarded EOS 1n. It is environmentally sealed to the same standard as the EOS 1n, so it can take some water, but as I read in Philip Greenspun’s review of the camera on Photo.net, you might not want to take it whitewater rafting with you. I don’t really have much more to say about the EOS 3 because the real focus of my attention and the camera that I used the most during my two-weeks with the kit was the EOS 1v. I will state that the EOS 3 is quite a loud camera and sounds so much like the canned shutter release sound used in television and movies whenever a camera goes off. The EOS 1v and the Nikon F100 are much smoother sounding and less jarring. Also, since the EOS 3 and EOS 1v share so many similar qualities, most of what I have to say about the Canon kit and the comparisons done will be in the next section. As much as I thought of the EOS 3 as a cheap, second-rate camera, it really isn’t and holds its own against most other cameras. Would it be enough of a camera for me to part money with? No. For all of my own subjective reasons, I much prefer my own Nikon F100 than the EOS 3. Lastly, I did not try out the eye-control focusing (ECF) of the EOS 3. I did not have the manual with me to set it up properly and as intriguing as the technology is, I do not think it is quite at the level required to make good use of it. I have briefly tried it on another EOS 3 that was set-up for ECF and it was very interesting. I would not dismiss this technology outright as it does offer some unique potential. However, Larry has never even bothered to try out ECF on either of his two EOS 3 bodies and I suspect most pros do not either. EOS
1v The EOS 1v is a magnesium alloy camera and this seemed to be a big hit with Canon users, but for me, I was like, so what, I’ve been using the magnesium alloy built F100 since early 2000, what’s the big deal? The EOS 1v is not entirely magnesium alloy with a curious amalgamation of some polycarbonate material in the understructure and surprisingly, for a camera of this caliber and price level, the camera back door is also polycarbonate. The F100 is also similarly not entirely magnesium alloy with a different type of metal used in the understructure. Magnesium alloy is used for the critical top, front and bottom parts of the camera’s skeletal structure. And similarly again, the F100 also uses a plastic camera back door, which did have a few F100 users scratching their heads why an otherwise outstanding camera would have this one weak spot. And unlike the EOS 1v, the F100’s camera back door is not wholly sealed off against dust and moisture; however, if my eyes have not deceived me, the sealing on the EOS 1v appears to be merely one strip of rubber material going along the short vertical side of the door. I could not fine any signs of sealing running along the two long horizontal lengths of the camera back door. The basic EOS 1v has a motor running at 3 frames per second, which is pretty prosaic for a top line camera body. The base EOS 3 and F100 better the EOS 1v in the fps; however, add the PB-E2 booster grip and now you have a speed demon in the EOS 1v with a maximum 10 fps rate when using the dedicated Ni-MH battery cell in the PB-E2. The EOS 3 does a similar tortoise to hare conversion with the PB-E2 with a maximum 7 fps. The F100 merely adds a ½ fps rate with the MB15 grip attached, which takes it up to a maximum of 5 fps. Speed is great and there is nothing like being able to rip through a 36-exposure roll of film in 3.6 seconds if you really wanted to, but who the hell (outside of professionals) really wants to? I’ve never used the full 5 fps capability of my F100 camera, but I have done 3 frames in a motor driven sequence here and there, as has my friend Larry. Neither of us has any use for 10 fps nor even 7 or 8, any of which would be overkill. For that reason Larry has not bothered to buy a PB-E2 for use with any of his three camera bodies. I would consider it not for motor drive capabilities but for better holding of the camera for portrait oriented shots. The EOS 1v took a page from the Nikon technical books and provided an optional computer link-up for the camera. This provides additional control of the camera’s features as well as the ability to download shooting data. I’ve never used any Nikon software for the F100, but being able to capture shooting data is quite useful, as I am now enjoying with the EXIF data from my Nikon D100 D-SLR.
The most well known of these custom functions is probably number four, the one which allows the user to turn the exposure lock button into the auto focus start button and turn off auto focus on the shutter release. I was quite surprised to see that my friend Larry did not use CF 4 on his own bodies and after several minutes of trying to figure out how to set the custom functions, I was able to turn on CF 4, as I much prefer to be in control of when I auto focus. Oh yes, in case you’re wondering why it took me several minutes to figure out how to set the custom functions, it was because I was in Nikon mode with how F100 custom functions are set. On the F100, you push the CF button and turn the rear command dial to select through the custom functions. With the CF button still pressed, you then use the front command dial to select through the options for the individual functions. On the Canon bodies, you push the CF button and the main command dial to select through the custom functions, no problem here. However, you do not use the rear command dial to select through the options for the individual functions like on the Nikon cameras, you instead use the CF button and push it to scroll through the options. Nothing like not having a user manual to help you grope through the workings of an unfamiliar kit. With the advent of custom functions, it seems that every other brand has adopted them and offers them in their mid to top level cameras. I think most other brands have also adopted CF 4 in some fashion or another, but perhaps none as brazenly as Nikon by using the exact same number for the function on the F100. Canon cameras have also been lauded for their auto focus speed when used with the ultra sonic motor (USM) lenses and while some pooh-pooh the need for USM, there is quite a seducing element to this technology. Yes, screw-driven lenses are extremely fast in focusing speed as Nikon and Minolta have proven with their respective lenses. Indeed, I found the focusing speed of the EOS 3 and EOS 1v to be nothing particularly special coming from the F100; however, the silence is golden. And the ability to fine tune focusing manually without fumbling around with switches or buttons as with screw driven lenses is great. There is no fear of stripping the screws or gears with USM lenses. Very well done Canon and thank you for bringing this innovation to light. Now, Nikon does have a number of lenses using the same technology, except known as Silent Wave; however, Nikon is taking its sweet time in bringing this technology to lower prices lenses that mere mortals can afford instead of keeping it in only their most expensive lenses. This is where Canon shines in having almost all of their lenses utilizing USM technology and really, I cannot even recall if any Canon even has any lenses still using the micro-motor (usually reserved for the cheapest consumer lenses in the past). Then there is Image Stabilization (IS), which is the other great Canon lens technology offered to the world. I don’t think there is a soul in the world that after using IS, would claim that it does not work nor provide any meaningful benefit. Those who knock it likely have not tried it and from my understanding of the latest generation of IS technology, there is no need to turn it off even when mounted on a tripod. The IS system continues to work to minimize the tiny vibrations that can still be around even on a tripod, especially with the super telephoto lenses. If your primary lenses have to be long, Canon IS lenses make for a very compelling option, one that may provide that extra edge to keep you ahead of your competitors or simply to provide that extra bit to get more sharp images than not. And yes, I know that there have been many thousands if not millions of images produced in the past without the new fangled technology; however, we should not regard IS technology as something to be suspicious of, but as a viable tool and option for one’s photographic needs.
Up until the F5 introduction, Canon was having its way with the visible professional photo and sports journalist market. The Nikon F4 had an auto focus system that was a laggard and in-between the years of the 1988 introduction of the F4 to the 1996 beginnings of the F5, Nikon had to make do with the less ruggedly built F90 and F90x bodies to remain competitive in the auto focus speed contest. When viewing the sidelines of sporting events or news scrums, cream-colored Canon lenses were everywhere and dominated. With digital taking over this market, the numbers between the light and dark colored lenses became more equal; however, my own informal glances at events still indicates a strong Canon majority. This dominance did not come about because Canon offered technological frippery. It came about because Canon offered excellent handling tools that performed in the hands of demanding users. So, with all that in mind, one would expect pretty high expectations for the replacement to the venerable EOS 1n camera. When the EOS 1v finally did arrive, I was quite surprised that some Canon users expressed disappointment that that was it. As if the most sealed camera in the industry and fastest firing camera without the need for a pellicle mirror were not enough. Add to that a larger viewfinder area for the auto focus sensors and a much improved flash technology to go with it and this was a disappointment?! It seemed that the EOS 1v was still not enough of an answer to the Nikon F5, especially with regard to the color-detecting exposure meter used in the F5, which even noted Canon user, Arthur Morris, commented as being the best available. I think the disappointment was very short-lived and really, one should enjoy the camera for its own merits as part of a large and very effective system. Referencing Arthur Morris again, he described moving up from an EOS 3 to a EOS 1v, as moving up from a Chevy to a Mercedes with everything having a much more refined feel to the EOS 1v. I fully agree that while the EOS 3 is good, it just looks and feels cheap not only in relation to the EOS 1v, but in comparison to its direct competitor, the Nikon F100. The EOS 1v in its HS guise with the PB-E2 booster grip becomes one of the most formidable cameras ever built and more than answers the speed of the Nikon F5. It’s a great handling camera for gripping with the right hand fitting perfectly around the grip. For Canon users, what more could you want? Other good points about the EOS 1v:
Where’s
the beef(s)? The top line Canon cameras have great features and functions, but so does my Nikon F100. There is little in the way of tangible benefits from one camera to the other, as both pretty much have all the functions and capabilities I need from a film camera. The primary difference is really more of how does one access those functions. To cut to the chase, I do prefer the way my F100 offers access to its various modes and functions. Whether that is due to almost six years of using Nikon cameras or whether that is due to a the F100 having a very logical layout and access, I cannot say confidently one way or the other. All I can say is that I am more comfortable with the F100 controls than the Canon bodies; the F100 makes more sense to me. The left side of the top deck of Canon cameras is pretty clean with only three buttons, which is in contrast to the F100 having a number of control options on the left side. However, it is not that the F100 has any more functions and controls so much as it is Canon doubling up the duties and functions of those three buttons. With the F100, only the film rewinding access requires two buttons to do double duty, otherwise all the other buttons have a solitary function. On the Canon cameras, pressing one button accesses one control but pressing two buttons in various combinations accesses other controls. I would not state that the Nikon way or the Canon way is superior, just different and a user who has used a particular system for a length of time is not likely to find anything peculiar about the way their respective cameras operate. So, my dislike for the Canon controls is more about my lack of familiarity with the system. Other minor quibbles, the depth of field preview button is in an awkward location and is more of a pinkie finger duty than a middle finger as with Nikon cameras. I also do not like where the on/off switch is located, preferring the on/off dial surrounding the shutter release on the F100. The battery
choice for the Canon cameras is a bit odd for me too. Although Canon
chose the capable lithium CR5 cell, this does seem an odd choice for
a professional camera. In
The F100 is not bigger than the EOS 3 or EOS 1v, so Canon could certainly have engineered AA-use capability. I am also surprised at the use of an old-style coin-slotted screw for accessing the battery chamber. This is awkward and fumbling when the need to change batteries quickly is required compared to the pull out, twist lock tab on the F100, which is fast and provides instant and easy access for changing batteries. Probably, all of this is the result of the way Canon engineered the mating of the PB-E2 to the EOS 3 and EOS 1v, which I have read is a rock solid integration of the two. And thankfully, the PB-E2 is AA compatible. The use of AA versus the small lithium cells may seem minor, but for me, AA provides more choices for me. I can cheap out and use regular alkalines, or splurge on the Energizer lithiums, or go practical and use rechargeable Ni-MH cells to save more money in the long run, which is what I do now. I also know that if ever I get into battery problems, I can run off to the closest 7-11 and buy AA cells without any problems. Accessing the focus points is also another point of dislike for me and here I do think that what Nikon came up with is the better route; however, the Canon auto focus system has its own advantage. The EOS 3 and EOS 1v have quite a large auto focus viewfinder area, which facilitates the large 45-point focusing system. As great as 45-points sounds, I have not come across any serious Canon user actually employing all 45-points because doing so would represent a lost of speed for focusing. It seems most users have settled on just 11 points being active as the best compromise between having a good spread of points to speed of access and focusing.
However, while the Nikon auto focus pad is a better way to select focusing points, Canon users benefit from having a larger spread of points meaning that Canon focusing points extend past the area covered by the five focus points in Nikon cameras. Canon users in tune with their cameras probably think nothing of pressing the button and then rotating through the focus points, it is all a matter of comfort and experience that you have with the camera that will help to make you more effective with the system. Speaking of comfort, I do like how the EOS 3 and EOS 1v have a generous eyecup for the user. The standard Canon eyecup is much more comfortable than the base Nikon cameras with just a hard round viewfinder circle to peer through. Only with an accessory round eyecup does the comfort of bringing the camera to the eye begin to match Canon cameras. If shooting handheld, this is an important point since you want good contact with the forehead to the camera for maximum stability. A larger eyecup helps much better in this regard. The viewfinder is fine and I found no problems with either the EOS 3 or the EOS 1v. I did not fully appreciate it when I was using the EOS 1v, but having a 100% viewfinder is very nice to have for exact compositional requirements. No worrying about whether some twigs or leaves will find their way onto the film because the camera only has a 96% or less viewfinder display. However, if shooting slides, the mounts will block of a tiny portion of the frame and I found some of my shots to have been cropped a bit too tightly with the EOS 1v. While I think very highly of the EOS 1v and think it to be an excellent offering, I find that it provides nothing more than what I already have with the F100. True enough that the F100 is not as well sealed against the elements like the EOS 1v is, but I have not had any operational problems with any Nikon camera I have owned due to foul or cold weather. This includes the D100 D-SLR, which is most definitely not even close to being in the same league as the EOS 1v for sealing and build-quality. I’ve used the D100 in steady rain without any problems whatsoever with no signs of moisture ingress. The EOS 1v does have a definite edge over the F100 for shutter life also known as mean time to failure. The EOS 1v, as befits a professional caliber camera, has a shutter assembly rated for 150,000 cycles whereas the F100 is rated at 100,000 cycles. I believe the EOS 3 has a similar 100,000 cycle rating; however, the French magazine Chasseur d’Image did a test of the shutter cycles of the EOS 3, F100 and Minolta Maxxum 9, and in a significant tip of the hat to Canon, the EOS 3 under test did not give up the ghost until 450,000 cycles had gone through whereas the F100 and Maxxum 9 were pretty much on spec of just over 100,000 cycles. That should inspire confidence in any Canon user. The difference between 100,000 and 150,000 means the EOS 1v should last 50% longer than the EOS 3, which puts the higher cost of the EOS 1v in better perspective vis a vis the EOS 3 or the Nikon F100. The basic EOS 1v is about 50% more than either of the lower cameras, and with all the other benefits of the EOS 1v in play, the price is appropriate. Adding the PB-E2 into the mix does make the EOS 1v more expensive, but the PB-E2 provides its own benefits, which cannot be dispensed with for some users. In conclusion, so far as comparing just the camera bodies are concerned, I’m quite happy with my Nikon F100, thank you, even with the several small benefits offered by the EOS 1v. However, a camera alone does not make a system… It’s
the lenses stupid Now a large lineup of lenses is great, but let’s not confuse total volume with superior quality. Not every one of the fifty plus lenses is going to be a keeper, as there are likely to be as many consumer oriented dogs as the next major camera brand. Where the action is happening is in Canon’s L series lens lineup, L for luxury apparently. This is where the make or break situation can occur for someone looking to upgrade or switch systems. Not only does Canon make optically excellent lenses, they have USM in almost all of the L series lenses and a significant number have IS. Add to that excellent weather sealing in the newest lenses, and you have a kit that can handle pretty much anything you could throw at it. If that were not enough there are the specialty lenses that Canon offers in the form of three tilt-shift (TS) lenses that many a photographer salivate over. Noted Nikon photographer John Shaw went so far as buying a Canon EOS 1 camera to enjoy the use of Canon’s TS lenses; however, I do not know if he still uses these pieces of equipment. Others took the TS lenses from the old FD series and converted them to Nikon mount. There is indeed a clamoring for such lenses and Nikon has only recently responded with a 85mm TS macro lens, which is highly regarded by Nikon users. Now some argue the merits of the need for a 24mm TS lens given how much depth of field a 24mm lens normally has, but would you rather have the choice of being able to buy one or would you rather not. I know what choice I would make even if such lenses are priced beyond my reach at this time. And to top it all off, Canon offers a number of high-speed lenses in the L series. I don’t know how many times I’ve read of Nikon users wishing they had a fast 35mm f1.4 lens with auto focus, so I do know that there is a desire for such a lens. Nikon does have a 28mm f1.4 lens, which for the lucky few who can afford it, seem to love it, but for some reason, this 28mm lens does not seem to be an accepted compromise. It seems that users either want a fast 24mm or fast 35mm or, what the hell, both. Well guest what? Canon users do have both. Add a super fast 50mm f1, a 85mm f1.2 and a 200mm f1.8 all with USM and for the photographer wanting fast lenses, Canon appears to have the one-stop shopping needs covered. All of the above is enough to convert some photographers, but is Canon even finished here? Hell no, not with the new Diffractive Optical (DO) lenses being developed. The price for the new 400mm f4 DO lens is astronomical; however, you can count on Canon to develop this technology further and provide trickle down products at much lower costs as the R&D is amortized and recovered by scale of economy. Whew, have to catch my breath here. Now, Nikon is the other significant brand sought by serious and professional photographers and the auto focus line-up is pretty staid in comparison. An argument can be made that Nikon offers what the everyday photographer needs and all the other extra stuff offered by Canon are far less popular and add little to the company’s bottom line. Well, wasn’t that said of Nikon when they came out with the monster-sized 6mm fisheye lens? Isn’t a 2000mm f11 mirror lens that requires a couple of NFL linemen to heft it a bit over the top for most photographers? Or how about the two-man zoom lens that resembled a bazooka? A large part of having lenses bought infrequently and by a tiny fraction of the photographic community, is about prestige. To be able to say, you want a high-speed 50mm f1 lens, we got it, so what if it costs $3000, you’re going to quibble about price, go look at the Leica 50mm f1 lens then. Okay, for me, I’m not in a position to need super fast and/or super long lenses for my photography. I would love to be able to own and use such lenses; however, they do not define me as a photographer. The vast majority of the range I shoot with is from 20mm to 400mm, plus or minus a few mm. Both Canon and Nikon would have me more than adequately covered, so the desire for me to switch over is not so overwhelming. However, if and when I would ever need to use or own such lenses, it would be nice to have that option than not. I really enjoyed using the professional USM lenses; however, Nikon has similar quality AF-S lenses in its lineup and hopefully by spring 2003, Nikon will introduce the 70-200mm AF-S VR lens, which will match the Canon IS lens. The 70/80-200mm lens is a key range for me, as I really take to these focal lengths for personal photography. 16-35mm
f2.8 USM L Secondly, with the proliferation of digital SLRs amongst both professionals and serious amateurs, the 17-35mm was a bit short on the D30/D60 and 1D bodies with their 1.6x and 1.3x viewfinder crops due to the use of smaller than full size digital capture sensors. The actual gain would seem pretty minor given the 1mm difference between 16 versus 17, but that 1mm can indeed make a big difference. On the D30/60 bodies, 17mm is about equal to 27mm, but 16mm gets you down to 25mm, and as anyone who enjoys wide-angle photography knows, every mm counts in certain photographic opportunities. For film cameras, the 16-35mm is the widest lens I’ve shot with and the perspective and angle of view is breathtaking for someone whose widest lens is 18mm (and probably more closers to 19mm in actuality). There
are obvious key-stoning effects when trying to photograph tall buildings;
however, it was quite dazzling to be able to cover from one street
to the next when I was shooting in downtown
Having 16mm on demand meant being able to stand within inches of a subject and still be able to have the entire subject in the frame. For these types of shots, you of course need to make the distortion from shooting at severe angles work for you. This is a wonderful lens for those interested in doing some intimate street shooting and I suspect that it was an instant hit amongst all the Canon-using photojournalists. The size and weight is what I would expect from a professional lens and for the focal lengths it covers, I’m quite surprised that Canon was able to keep it quite average in size and still using the 77mm filter size. Look at the wide-angle offerings from third party brand Sigma and even their variable aperture wide-angle lenses use the less common and conventional 82mm filter size. Sigma wide-angle lenses also seem to have quite bulbous front elements just asking to be accidentally touched or bumped. The lens incorporates a rubber gasket to provide an industry leading seal against the elements when used with appropriate EOS bodies, such as the 1v and the two professional D-SLRs from Canon (1D and 1Ds). The bayonet lens hood is quite wide but short and has a felt-like material on the inner side that likely absorbs light but is quite dust attractive. 28-70mm
f2.8 USM L It’s a normal range lens, which always seems to be the most boring yet is likely to be the most used lens in a kit. The 28-70mm is now a bit elderly within the Canon lens lineup, but the reviews I’ve read of it have always praised it as being bleedingly sharp. And really, when this lens was introduced, it really trumped what Nikon had to offer at the time by going wider than 35mm to 28mm at the short end. For quite a while, Nikon’s normal range lens for professionals and serious amateurs was the 35-70mm f2.8 lens, which I happen to own. It is a fine lens and it is more than sharp enough for very critical use and is a veritable bargain compared to the newer 28-70mm lenses. However, I will admit that there have been many times when I wished I had a little bit more at the long end and especially at the wide end. I use the 35-70mm extensively during a wedding shoot and I’ve been to a few Chinese tea ceremonies where the 35-70mm always seemed too long at 35mm and where a 24 to 28mm lens would be perfect. Now people often say just use foot power to get farther from or closer to the subject, but this just does not work in many shooting situations I’m faced with. In close quarters inside people’s homes with many other people around you, there just is no space to use the foot power zoom. The Canon 28-70mm lens is nice and large with good weight to it. There always seems to be complaints about this lens and the Nikon 28-70mm as being too large and heavy for what it offers. Panther piss, as Clint Eastwood might say, this lens is as big and heavy as it needs to be to provide the tremendous optical quality and convenience it offers. I very much doubt that those who have the lens and complain about it would give it up. Interestingly enough, the lens is similar to my 35-70mm lens in that it gets longer as you go wider and is most compact at 70mm. The bayonet lens hood has been set-up in what I think is a very thoughtful approach by Canon. The petal-style lens hood is quite large and deep and at 70mm, provides the maximum protection for the lens. However, the hood is seated in such a position that when the lens is zoomed out to 28mm, the lens extends so that the hood is no longer as deep. The hood does not move, just the front, inner portion of the lens does. No matter what focal length you use, the lens hood is always at the most appropriate length. Very well done Canon! I would have liked to use this lens more, but as it turned out, most of my attention and shooting was with the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm lenses. I suppose a straight 50mm prime would have been ideal to cover in-between 35mm and 70mm, but c’est la vie. During my limited use of the lens, there was nothing about its performance that would have me question its professional bona fides. 70-200mm
f2.8 UMS IS L In very quiet settings I can hear the high-pitched sound emanating from the IS motor. The only thing I hear with USM is just lens elements moving back and forth for focusing. The lens is very well built and feels very solid in the hands. It is a very expensive lens at around $3000 CAN, but nothing about it makes me feel that it is not worth the money. The included lens hood is a large and deep petal style, unlike the short lens hood I have for my Nikon 80-200mm lens, which is only really effective at the 80mm short end of the focal length range. The bayoneting lens hood also has a felt-like material on the inside surface. It can be reversed for storage purposes. This lens also enjoys the rubber gasket found in the newest Canon lenses for excellent weather sealing with the appropriate cameras. Lens Testing Disclaimer – I shot a few rolls of film for testing on the last day I had the kit, so the test is neither wholly thorough nor scientific since I just used a view that was close and convenient. I merely report what I observed in the review of the slides under an 8x loupe. Fuji Provia 100F was used, although I supposed I should have used Fuji Velvia for resolution purposes. Cameras and lenses were mounted on my Gitzo tripod except when I was doing the handheld IS comparisons. Cable releases were used to release the shutter except when handholding the camera and lens. I shot the full range of aperture settings for the lenses and after comparing the slides, I found nothing to choose from between f5.6 or f8, so I settled on f8 as the slides to use for optimum optical quality. This was a headache inducing exercise to look for such tiny differences to report. I do not miss the light table and loupe for viewing slides compared to viewing images comfortably on a large CRT monitor. Generalities – the Canon and Nikon lenses showed remarkable consistency for colorcast and quality. The difference between how the respective cameras exposed the scene led to far greater differences on the slide than what I could discern in terms of outright optical differences. There has always been a bit of a smug superiority complex amongst Nikon users that though Canon may have some nifty pieces of technology, Nikon glass still has something to it that trumps what Canon has ever had to offer in its past and currently. I saw nothing on the slides that would give credence to that smugness and found the Canon lenses to be excellent. I remarked in the Elan II review that the Canon and Nikon lenses I compared then could have come from the same factory and I have no problem with restating that opinion here. Differences, yes there were some, as I will indicate in the various sections below, but nothing of significance that would scream out one brand being better than the other. Canon
16-35mm f2.8 L & Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5
Summary Canon
28-70mm f2.8 L & Nikon 35-70mm f2.8
Summary However, I give the definite edge to the Canon lens over the old Nikon due to its greater range, USM technology and a useful lens hood. It really makes me wish I could afford the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S lens for these benefits, but I lose no sleep over the optical quality offered by my elderly 35-70mm lens. Canon
70-200mm f2.9 IS L & Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
I also tried out the Image Stabilization feature of the Canon lens and although I shot at every aperture with IS on and turned off, it was not until I got to f22 and f32 that I saw just how significant IS can be for handheld shooting. I did the tests at the maximum 200mm focal length in good daylight conditions. At f16 the shutter speed was 1/80 of a second and I was able to hold the lens steady enough that I saw no difference with IS on or off. At f22 the shutter speed went down to 1/40 and there is a definite difference and IS made for a usable shot compared to the blurred mess with IS off. At f32 the shutter speed is a brutally slow 1/20, which is factor of 10x slower than what the recommended shutter speed should be for a 200mm lens without IS. However, 1/20 is not far off the three-stop improvement in the handholding capabilities that the current generation of IS provides. The slide is quite soft with IS on, but at this aperture setting, I couldn’t tell you if the softness is from my handshaking and limits of the IS motor, or from the diffraction limits of the lens itself at the smallest aperture. What I can tell you though is that the IS on slide could still be usable as an image whereas the IS-off slide is garbage bin material. Summary
550EX
Flash I did shoot off a roll of color negative film in the EOS 3 with the 28-70mm attached, just to see what I would get in terms of flash photography with family snapshots. However, for my personal photography, flash use is quite infrequent and I prefer to use natural light. I do tend to pack one of my SB28 flashes with the SC17 TTL cord in my camera bag whenever I do head out for some personal shooting, but way more often than not the flash and cord stay in the bag. This was little different when I was using the Canon kit. I do consider flash technology and use to be important because it is used so much of the time when I shoot a wedding. However, when shooting weddings, I’m using professional color or B&W negative films, films that have been formulated to have generous latitude, so that a photographer could be really sloppy and still come up smelling like roses with the prints. Just one thing about using negative films, the quality of the prints have as much to do with the quality of the printer as it does with your skills as a photographer and how good your equipment is. Larry and I always do plus compensation with the negative films we shoot to err on the side of caution. I generally do a plus ½ stop while Larry may do as much as a full stop of compensation. We receive very good-looking prints from the labs we use, which of course is the end result of our skills, our professional equipment and using professional labs with great experience handling the professional films we use. So, that end, trying to test the 550EX flash is fraught with difficulty and using flash with slide film is not a normal occurrence for me, so my results would likely be suspect anyway. I can add in some observations I’ve made in the past when seeing Larry shoot a wedding with his kit and in talking to him afterwards. Larry seems to do manual overrides with his flash and camera as much as he just shoots with straight E-TTL and letting the flash and camera compute a flash exposure. I do little manual compensation of my flash output unless there is a specific shooting situation that I feel warrants me overriding the flash and camera. One override that I do religiously these days is to turn off Matrix 3D mode on my SB28 flashes when shooting indoors and just using standard TTL flash mode, whereas in outdoor scenes, I turn the Matrix 3D mode back on. Why do I do this? Nikon’s Matrix 3D flash mode is a fill-flash mode and works quite effectively in outdoor settings; however, it has a tendency to underexpose a subject indoors. If you think about 3D Matrix being a fill-flash setting, this does make perfect sense because with fill-flash you do want flash underexposure for a good shot (underexposed from the standard TTL setting).
Canon cameras do not have a 1/60 default unless shooting in Program mode. Thus in Aperture Priority mode, I must be careful to ensure that the shutter does not fall to very slow speeds when I am handholding the camera. This is another situation where one method is not necessarily superior to another, just different and the user of a particular brand would likely not find anything wrong with how the camera and flash operates. What is quite nice is to see in the viewfinder are two separate bar graphs for ambient exposure and flash exposure when a flash is attached and turned on. It tells you very quickly what each is doing individually and in relation to each other. So, while I cannot offer a whole lot of detailed commentary on the effectiveness of E-TTL, an experienced user should be able to obtain the desired effects. One aspect of the 550EX did have me puzzled though. In previous discussions with Larry, I mentioned why he just does not set the flash to standard TTL mode instead of E-TTL when he knows he could be in a shooting situation with an underexposure risk (usually indoors). In these instances he may revert to Manual flash mode to work around E-TTL. Larry looked at me somewhat puzzled at the mention of standard TTL. I’m like, say what, your big huge honkin flash has no standard TTL mode? The SB28 and its predecessors in the “smart” flash range (SB25 and up) have Nikon’s Matrix TTL fill flash settings but you can turn off the Matrix TTL and just use plain vanilla standard TTL for indoor use, as well as Auto and Manual modes. In doing a quick overview of the 550EX, I only saw settings for E-TTL, Manual and Multi, for what I assume to be a stroboscopic setting. Physically, the 550EX flash is damn big compared to the Nikon SB28. It does have a bit more power and punch thanks to its beefy size, but the SB28 is not exactly a lightweight in power despite its svelte design. The 550EX also provides an intriguing feature of being able to model light the subject and see how the shadows will fall. It does this via high frequency pulses from the flash that appears to be a continuous light source to the human eye. It was a nifty enough feature that Nikon ripped it off for its latest, greatest SB80DX flash unit, which seems to be a 550EX writ small for features. I wish Nikon had ripped off the wireless TTL slave mode of the Canon flash too. The newish SB80DX is quite a nice flash with a TTL slave mode built in; however, I understand this mode to be an optical slave, which means other flashes going off could also set off a slave SB80DX unexpectedly. The Canon 550EX has a couple of channels for the wireless TTL mode, which means other flashes will not set off your slave flashes. The slave sensor on the 550EX is on the front of the flash unit and not off to one side like the SB80DX, which makes for a more adaptable wireless system. All in all, the Canon wireless mode looks well thought out whereas the Nikon wireless feature seems half-baked. There is also the peculiar non-functionality of the wireless TTL mode with Nikon’s digital SLRs owing to the differences in how film cameras and digital cameras do their flash exposure calculations. I know of no such limitation with the Canon digital cameras. Conclusion
I quite enjoyed my time with the Canon kit and I’m thankful to have been able to get a taste of what Canon offers. However, my time with the kit just reinforced what has slowly been an evolving approach to photography equipment for me; it’s the photographer that makes the photo, not the equipment. It’s a very simple statement and not really profound, but it always seems to get lost in the mix and hype of the latest and greatest from a given brand of equipment. Sometimes photographers like to point out professionals who use a particular brand or had done a high profile switch from one brand to another. As if that chosen brand had a mystique or magical ability to transform one from average or good to superlative. Well guess what, photographers like Art Wolfe or Michael Weber, who have done some brand switching in their professional careers created outstanding images prior to their switch and they continue to create outstanding images with their present kit. Now it is true that one particular brand may offer certain features that make it a better tool for a chosen type of photography, but knowing your kit inside and out and how to make it work for you in the types of photography you do is more important than any one feature (but damn that IS is sweet!) Canon does make for some excellent problem solving tools in various types of photography, such as sports and wildlife with super telephoto lenses, or in very demanding outdoor elements; however, I am thankfully not in such a situation that I need those tools for what I do. I can thus not worry about how a brand switch would go over financially because my Nikon kit serves me very well at present and the major benefits of the Canon system can be found in Nikon offerings too. And I suppose after nearly six years of using Nikon equipment, I am quite comfortable with what I have. So, yes, the grass can seem greener in certain patches here and there, but you know what, the grass can be just as green on my side of the fence too. As time progresses and as various technologies become adopted by other brands there tends to be a convergence of features and capabilities. There is definite convergence happening with Nikon and Canon offerings, such that it is folly to dump a whole system for the other, especially in this digital age where new offering are coming out so much faster than film cameras ever did. I write and comment from the perspective of a serious hobbyist and not as a professional whose bread and butter is photography. I may just have different conclusions if I was a certain type of professional photographer, but nothing is certain in life...
|
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
Is
the grass greener on the other side of the road? Can USM and IS technology
rock your world? Is Canon the end all be all, of the 35mm photographic
world? 
This
is one camera that I must admit to having a number of preconceptions
about. I had only hefted it a few times in the past and never used
it before, but biases immediately formed when I read the initial reviews
from 1999 about the EOS 3.
This
is the camera that I really wanted to handle and get a feel for to
see where Canon is as far as camera bodies are concerned. It would
be interesting to do a direct comparison to the Nikon F100. Now that
may not seem fair to compare Nikon’s number two camera to Canon’s
number one; however, when comparing the basic cameras without their
booster grips/motor drives, the comparison turned to be more fair
than one would presume. Besides, I did not have access to a Nikon
F5 anyway.
The
EOS 1v obviously carries forward the innovations that Canon developed
since introducing the EOS-EF cameras and lens mount in the late 1980s.
The EOS bodies have been lauded for their ergonomic handling with
the nice right hand grip and dual control dials to facilitate ease
of access to various functions and features. Perhaps most prominently,
so far as the camera features are concerned, was the introduction
of the custom functions that allowed a user to fine tune certain controls
to better suit particular shooting needs.
The
EOS 1v inherits a mighty rich history of Canon innovation and refinement
from the original F1 of the FD mount era to the first EOS 1 of the
EF mount era. It had mighty high standards to live up to and for the
first time in a long while, Canon had to respond to the significant
challenge the Nikon F5 provided when that camera was introduced in
1996.
From
a Nikon users perspective (me, of course), the benefits of the Canon
system are becoming less green than I had originally thought or assumed
before using the kit.
I
find the access a bit slow though, as you push the focus point button
with the right thumb and then dial through the points using main and
sub command dials for the focus point you want. With the latest Nikon
bodies, one just presses the pad on the camera back to select the
point. It’s faster and more direct with one less step and the pad
allows you to go up or down in orientation.
This
is a lens that was a response to a couple of things that had Canon
users concerned or annoyed. First, it replaces the 17-35mm f2.8 lens,
which many users appreciated for the focal length range it offered;
however, many users found the performance of the lens at the wider
focal lengths to be a disappointment and not quite in keeping with
an expensive professional caliber lens.
This
lens almost got lost in the shuffle from my excitement of being able
to use the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm IS lens. 
This
lens has major sex appeal. The size and weight is right in line with
most other fast 80-200mm lenses. In the original USM guise, this lens
was already smokin’, but add in IS and now you are talking about a
mondo killer lens. It has the latest generation of IS, which does
not require the user to turn it off when mounting on a tripod, the
IS assembly being smart enough to either turn itself off or to just
provide minute adjustments to counteract vibration, even on a tripod. 
Just as the very fine 28-70mm lens saw limited use, so too did the
550EX flash sit forlorn and abandoned in the camera bag. My prime
opportunity to see what Canon’s E-TTL flash technology was all about
and I left it as an afterthought.
Canon
flash also differs in the way it operates in my usual shooting mode
of Aperture Priority. With Nikon flash, the flash and camera always
keep the shutter speed at a minimum 1/60 of a second to reduce the
chance of handshake creating a fuzzy shot. To override this 1/60 default,
which occurs in Aperture and Program modes, the user must use either
Shutter Priority or Manual mode to set a desired shutter speed. Should
the ambient light allow for it, the shutter speed can become faster
to the maximum flash sync speed of the 
