eos 1n vs. nikon f100

[james_golden]

I have narrowed my favorites down to these two cameras due to the cost/feature ratio. Please give some ideas and/or feedback on the choic (lenses will be 70-200 2.8 and 28-70 2.8). Thanks!

[louis_philippe_masse]

James,

 

<p>

 

According to every magazines I have readed, they are both excellent

cameras. If you want my suggestion, I would try both and choose the

one that feel better in my hand and suit my style the best.

 

<p>

 

Sorry for the boring answer but you can easely predict what comment

you will get: all Nikon fans will vote for the F100 and the Canon

guys for the EOS-3.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

 

<p>

 

lp

[bobatkins]

It really doesn't matter much. Distrust anyone who says it does.

 

<p>

 

Try to figure out what features and lenses you will need in the future

and see which SYSTEM meets your needs. It gets expensive to switch

brands if you find you need something your initial choice doesn't

have.

[brad_hutcheson]

The first two posters have given you as close to a correct answer as

can be had. Check the features you are likely to use, and the

ergonomics of the design. Don't forget to look at the system as a

whole as Bob said. If you think you will need a feature or accessory

that one has and the other doesn't, you will have your answer. I

know which is the right camera for me, but no one can make the same

decision for you. Both will give fine results, and both companies

make fine lenses. Don't let anyone tell you anything different. If

you are not going to need any accesories that are not available with

one or the other, pick the one that feels best and has the most

logical controls to you.

 

<p>

 

<b><i>Posts that try to turn this into a Nikon/Canon flame war will

be deleted!!!</i></b>

[cl]

How about trying them out at a friendly photo shop? Make a list of

what you like to do most with your camera before pressing the

shutter. Perhaps it is switching from manual to auto modes, or

adjusting compensations, or exposure lock, etc. While both of these

excellent cameras can deliver all of the essential functions, perhaps

one may seem to give you a better feel than the other.

[ivan_verschoote1]

A small thing to take in consideration: have a look what brand your

friends are using and try to evaluate their comments. Buying the same

brand as your friends has some small advantages. You can learn to use

your camera faster, problems are likely to get solved more directly.

If you have a good relation with some good friends you can even borrow

material for those one-time events. I'm thinking of multi flashlight,

big telelenses, specific macro's, super wide-angles...

[norman___]

I changed from Canon EOS to Nikon just to get the high-eyepoint

viewfinder on the F4 (later I changed to F-90X, and maybe I will go

for the F5 this year). Anyway, they (the Nikons!) all gave me far

better control over the final image frames) than any of the Canons I

have ever tried.

 

<p>

 

I always wear glasses....

[john_n._wall]

The EOS 1n is Canon's top-of-the-line model and the F100 is Nikon's

next-to-the-top-of-the-line model, behind the F5.

 

<p>

 

So the 1n has some features that the F100 doesn't, especially 100%

viewfinder and mirror lock up. The 1n may be a bit more durable.

 

<p>

 

(I'm a Nikon shooter, so how's that for being fair?)

 

<p>

 

The F100 has going for it the high eyepoint viewfinder, in fact one of

Nikon's best, and vertical as well as horizontal focusing spots. It

has newer AF technology and may be a touch faster.

 

<p>

 

But the major factor is, which one is going to make you want to go out

and take pictures? That is going to be a factor of "feel" -- which

body feels best in your hands and easiest and most natural to use.

 

<p>

 

So there is no substitute for giving 'em both a serious try. Rent or

borrow if possible a sample of each and shoot a roll or two of film of

the kinds of subjects you like to shoot with each.

 

<p>

 

Then you'll know.

[gary_wilson]

The EOS-1N is a very well built camera and will last you a long time

but it is older technology so if you're not into having the latest

and greatest it should do you fine plus with the advent of the EOS-3

the price is right plus rebates. The F100 is newer technology and

appears to also be well built and long lasting. It would be a tough

decision for almost anyone to decide. After you've figured out what

you want to use the camera for and still can't decide then flip a

coin, you'll win either way.

[sean_hester]

about "Anyway, they (the Nikons!) all gave me far better control over

the final image frames) than any of the Canons I have ever tried"

 

<p>

 

what does that mean? what feature or control gives you that control?

or are you just describing that you like the nikon interface better?

because with cameras that expensive, i can't imagine one having less

control then the other. maybe better AF, or easier to use options,

or something minor, but missing options that affect control? i'd love

to hear which one(s).

[russ_arcuri1]

Sean -- I think what Norman means is that because he can more easily

see the entire frame with the high-eyepoint Nikon finders, he has

better control of what ends up on the frame. I don't think he's

implying what you think he's implying. Norman should correct me if my

guess is wrong.

[sean_hester]

oh. i think i DID assume wrong. sorry...

 

<p>

 

i guess the high eyepoint viewfinder thing makes sense, sort of...

but doesn't the 1n have a 100% finder and the f100 have something less

(97% maybe?) but i guess if you can't see around the whole 100% it

won't do you any good. i'm lucky to not have to wear glasses, yet, so

i'm not used to comparing cameras based on that issue.

[kurt_heintzelman]

James: The lack of mirror pre-lock with the F100 is a big drawback,

IMO. What in the world was Nikon thinking of to introduce a high end

body without this? (What was Canon thinking to introduce the EOS 3 at

$1399.00 w/o viewfinder shutter and 100% viewfinder coverage? Maybe it

is because they want dedicated amateurs and pro's to eventually opt

for the 1n's successor, which will offer these 1n-like features. Who

knows but Canon?, and they are not yet talking to us consumers) When

Canon launched the EOS (electro-optical system) line about 10 years

ago, they made a bold move by increasing the diameter of the lens

mount. This was done to allow more room for electronic interfacing

between lenses and camera, as well as for other sound and forward

thinking reasons. I wonder if Nikon will eventually be forced to make

a similar move. If so, current Nikon users will face the dilemma

Canon FD users had to face 10 years ago, which is to trade in the old

for the new. Canon stuck their collective neck out by doing this, and

the gamble seems to have paid off. Thus, it may well be that the Canon

EOS system is much better poised to meet future technological

advances than the current Nikon system. IMO, Canon EOS lenses

(especially the L series) are the deciding factor. The large diameter

EOS lens-camera interface is big enough to accomodate the future.

And, this line of 35 mm lenses is arguably the best and most

innovative around. Canon innovated ultrasonic motor technology (and

later sold it to Nikon...) as well as Image Stabilization technology

(Nikon just recently applied for its own IS-like patents, I think),

which is nothing short of revolutionary. Their tilt-shift lenses are

yet another example of superb engineering. The EOS 28-70/2.8L and the

70-200/2.8L lenses are regarded by many as the finest zooms around

currently, rivaling many fixed focal length lenses in terms of

sharpness, contrast and flexibility. The EOS 300/4 IS lens is nothing

short of spectacular. Go to a major sporting or other event and

behold all the white Canon EOS telephoto's lined up on pods with Canon

bodies to match. In the arena of lenses, Nikon is clearly playing

"catch up", IMO. With regard to camera bodies, Nikon may currently

have the edge with the F5 and its advanced metering technology, but

Canon's 1n, EOS 3 and A2 are solid performers that offer something

Nikon lacks, which is compatability with the full line of EOS lenses.

Look for Canon to introduce a successor to the 1n in the near future.

While I agree that both Canon and Nikon offer excellent systems, I

believe that Canon is a wiser investment, and by stating this I am

giving you an answer/opinion that you requested in your posting. To

answer your question by ambiguously saying that both systems are just

dandy and basically the same, but..., "hey, you figure it out for

yourself..." Well, that may not be very helpful to you as you prepare

to let go of some major cash.

<P>

<I>It isn't that we are unwilling to suggest which camera we think is best. It is the simple fact that you can't make a decision like that for someone else. Even if we had more facts about usage, etc, there are other factors too. Personally, Nikon's user interface makes thier cameras about as usful as a door stop for taking pictures, for me. There are other people who feel the viewfinder is so much better that they can't use anything else (I couldn't tell that much difference between my Elan IIe and an N70, but some people can). Others are as uncomfortable with Canon ergonomics (which I think are great) as I am Nikon's UI. There really are too many intangibles to recomend a <B>SYSTEM</B> to someone over the internet. If he already had a system and was in need of a new camera for it, it would be a little easier, but there are even variables there....</I>

<P>

Brad

<P>

[geoffrey_s._kane3]

Kurt, the larger mount diameter lens mount does allow Canon to produce

some f 1.0 lens versus Nikon who seems to max out at f 1.2 Nikon

doesn't seem to be running out of space for electrical contacts. In

fact Nikon seems to be able to extract and record (either in RAM or on

the film) a whole bunch more information about the lens in use. Also,

in all the sources I have found, Nikon denies buying their silent-wave

technology from anyone (either from Canon or anyone else). If you've

got info on this I'd love to see it.<p>

While Nikon and Canon do have their own differet strenghts and

weaknesses, I <b>DO</b> agree with Brad and the others that user

interface and "feel" is much more important than specs for general

shooting. If you can't hold the camera and reach the buttons you need

to, the little differences won't matter.<p>

While you can't buy Nikkor tilt shift lenses anywhere (and you can't

buy 6 mm f 2.8 fisheyes or 1200-1700 mm zooms from Canon), unless you

need to shoot with "specialty" lenses all the time you can probably

survive with renting them (and the necessary SLR body) when you need

them.<p>

--Jeff

[kurt_heintzelman]

FWIW, I was told by Jack Kimbler (Canon tech. rep.) last year that

Canon had sold its ultrasonic motor technology to Nikon. James'

question asks for feedback and advice on his purchasing decision

(Nikon F100 vs. EOS 1n), did he not? I replied that my vote goes to

Canon. Brad: By offering my opinion with regard to James' question,

how am I making the decision for him? I'm quite certain that James is

capable of weighing the evidence to arrive at his own decisions. Many

of us are carrying around camera bags filled with thousands of dollars

of photographic gear, and many of us know well the experience of being

approached by interested bystanders and asked about our gear. And so

I ask you (and this is really what James is asking): Why did YOU

choose Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Contax, or whatever? Are you happy with

your choice, and if so, WHY? If not, why not? Or do you (perhaps

secretly) regret your choice and wish you had INVESTED differently?

Would you admit it? Would you offer the curious bystander the benefit

of your hard-won experience and candid advice as a consumer of this

expensive gear? If you have regrets, are you sticking with your choice

because you feel you're in to deep to change horses midstream? (I know

a couple of folks in this latter situation). Food for thought.

[john_macpherson]

I have NEVER entered one of these CANON v NIKON arguments, but here

goes with my five cents worth.

<P>

I have an EOS1n and 35-350 zoom, and an Nikon f4s and 500m f4. I use

the two cameras together for lots of wildlife work. The Canon is

lovely to use, quick and intuitive. The 35-350 lens has been slated

and well-rubbished in various photosites and reviews, but I have had

more images published from this lens than any other I have owned. My

clients love the results, my picture agents love the results. What

more can a boy ask? The Nikon F4s is one of the best handling cameras

I have ever used. Why? Because ALL the controls are reachable with the

fingers of my right hand. I can hit the frame-rate switch, meter

pattern, shutter speed, etc etc all with my right hand.....which means

I dont have to take my left hand off the focus ring, which you have to

do with F90 and the Canons. That has gained me several shots I would

otherwise have lost.

<P>

So what point am I making? ALL cameras have good points and bad

points, and all the advice you will get here will reflect personal

preferences. The bottom line is - any pro camera you chose will be a

stunningly sophisticated bit of kit that will do most anything you ask

of it. It is HOW it does it that will be the deciding factor for YOU,

and for the work you do. So good luck with your dec

[norman___]

To Sean and Russ (both 15. april):

 

<p>

 

You are right, Russ - I tried (but maybe failed!) to say that the

view-finder (at least for eye-glass-wearers) is far better on Nikon

(F4, F90X and F5) than on any of the Canon EOS-cameras I have ever

tried.

 

<p>

 

With the Nikons it's quite easy to see the corners and the outer

limits of the image in the finder, and by that carefully decide the

final composition. When the slides after some days return from the

lab, you will have no big surprise by finding unexpected objects at

the edge of the image.

 

<p>

 

Also the (almost) 100% coverage is helpful, but for glass-wearers the

high-eyepoint is more important.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Hmmmm..... EOS1n vs. F100??? I don't think it is fair to compare

Canon's top of the line body to Nikon's #2 body. EOS3 vs. F100

would be better. Or EOS1n vs F5. Otherwise why not compare the new

Rebel 2000 against the F5?

[costas_dimitropoulos2]

One should only compare what he can buy with the same amount of money.

The EOS-1n is quite a bit cheaper than the F100 and so are the

28-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L lenses compared to their new Nikon

counterparts. If one puts in the price of the teleconverters you can

see that the Canon system can be had for almost $1000 cheaper, for the

current US market stuff with the running rebates. This price

difference is too large for anybody to go with the Nikon outfit if

he's starting out. The AF-S lenses are still overpriced and one can

find a lot of uses for the money he can save by going with Canon for

the setup that James has in mind.

[james_golden]

The comparison is quite valid (1) because those are the two that have the features I want, (2) they are quite similar in ruggedness, 5 point autofocus system, fps, metering, etc.

[costas_dimitropoulos2]

I am a little confused now. Does the price difference matter to you?

[james_golden]

Costas...

 

<p>

 

Well, to some extent yes, but between these two cameras, the

difference is reconcilable. If it were the 1n and the F5, then it

would be a different story. As I mentioned originally, the

cost/feature ratio seemed to raise these two cameras to the top,

although the Maxxum 9 confuses things slightly. I am set on the glass

I want, but a bit stuck on which body to go into. I love the

ergonomics of the EOS system, but Nikon's flash system and viewfinders

are great for my less than stellar eyesight. I have never gotten

ahold of a 1n, but have messed around with the F100 and was very

impressed. Likewise, I don't know if I'll ever actually hold a Maxxum

9 unless I bought one, as I live in a very small market area. Hence,

I appealed to the masses for the intangibles of the various models, so

as to help my relatively blind decision. Also, I have only been able

to view Philip's review of the 1n and Pop photo's review, leaving a

bit to be desired in the research column. Nonetheless, the responses

have been very helpful.

[costas_dimitropoulos2]

James:

 

<p>

 

In this case, you should simply try to check out the EOS-1n in a store

and get the camera that feels the best and you are more comfortable in

using. You don't really have a difficult problem in your hands. Shoot

one roll in each camera and get the one you like the best.

[sean_hester]

stanley, i can't believe you actually think cameras should be compared

basen on product lineup rather then price/featuers. the 1n and the

f100 are pretty similar in price and features. why would you copmpare

either to the the double the price F5? just because the F5 is the

most expensive nikon and the 1n is the most expensive canon?

 

<p>

 

that means if i'm car shopping i can't compare the nissam maxima

(pretty much the most expensive nissan 4 door sedan) to the lexus

gs300 (a car pretty similar in size/price/features to the maxima) or

the BMW 323i (similar again) because those are the lower end lexus and

BMW. obviously i need to comapre the maxima to the LS400 and 750i

since then i'd be comapraing everone's most expensive entry. (even

though the LS400 and 750i cost 2-3 TIMES as much as a maxima) i think

not.

[pentz]

Well I guess this thread is REALLY old by now but I would like to add

my 2 cents for anyone who reads through this stuff trying to make a

similar decision.

 

<p>

 

I think the decision of which camera to buy should NEVER be a Nikon

vs Canon thing. Camera's come and go but the lenses you buy are more

likely to be your most expensive decisions. That's where I would make

MY decision. As an example, I currently am a Nikon user but at this

point I have a very small system... only 2 lenses. Well I'm trying to

decide now whether or not to switch to Canon. The reasons: looking at

the prices of good quality lenses, it does seem that Canon's choices

are cheaper. I'm one of those people who would prefer to buy a name

brand lens over a cheap non-brand name lens. It's a comfort level

issue. Also, I'm a little concerned that Nikon will indeed change

their mount. Call it a perception but it does seem like there is more

Canon equipment showing up in the hands of photojournalists and

sports photographers. That's where Nikon's real money lies and

they'll have to respond sooner or later to the trend, which you do

see in the AF-S technology. I guess being that they're using the old

mount for AF-S and also on the F5, maybe that's reason to believe

they won't change. Anyway, basically it's all a crapshoot and one

must eventually put your money down and do something. I would like to

agree with the post that defended their stating their own opinions. I

like to read why people chose what they did and why they didn't like

the alternative. I'm certainly able to filter the information

according to my own needs and desires. Those who posted replies of

'go which one feels best' or 'you will not make a mistake whichever

one you choose' really doesn't help. The things that I might think

are worthwhile may not really matter once I get more experienced. So

PLEASE, put down your opinions, flame Nikon, flame Canon... I'll

figure out the stuff that matters. Anyone who can't is going to be

misled by someone else sooner or later anyway.

 

<p>

 

Phew, I'd say that was a lot more than 2c worth... :-)