Looking at EOS 600 series: am I nuts?

[sfcole]

I was thinking of getting an EOS 650 or 620 to use with a Sigma 300 F4 for nature shots. It's mainly for

cost--a body goes for around $100. Am I nuts? Right now I'm using a Canon F-1, but I need autofocus for

this and don't have a lot of $$.

 

Are these cameras too old? Are the autofocus systems effective? Any repair issues?

thanks

[joe_photo2]

LOL-- not nuts. A better bet is the A2 which can be had for 50-75$ + shipping on ebay...

 

I have an A2e I never use anymore, but they're pretty nice.

[lancemcvay]

I just bought a 10s on ebay for $50. There are some great values to be had.

[yves_jalbert]

<p>

<i>"Are these cameras too old?"</i>

</p>

 

<p>

I don't think any camera is ever too old. You only get rid of a camera when it's no longer worth the money to have it repaired (my opinion). I love my cameras and even though I now shoot digital 95% of the time, it's still a real pleasure to take a 35mm once in a while, purchase a few rolls of film and go take photographs in the city.

</p>

[picturesque]

You're not nuts. I have an RT, based on the 630. Only repair issue I've had is the sticky shutter bumper issue--do a search. You can even take care of it yourself if you want. Autofocus is much cruder, of course, and some say beastly, but I think it works well enough--never had problems with it.

[robert lee]

I'd go for something more recent, maybe an Elan-something or A2/EOS5. You'll get better AF, and lessen the chance of running into oxidized foam or rubber parts.

[PuppyDigs]

The 600 series are well made, almost like an EOS 1 without weather seals. Plus they had a full

array of focusing screens, including micro prism and split. You're need one as the single axis

AF is so poor it's nearly useless.

 

If you want a beefy box with excellent AF, look into an EOS 3 or 1N. They go for $300-400.

The EOS 5/A2 has excellent AF also, albeit in a more fragile body but goes for $100-150.

[pbizarro]

Depending on your technique and experience, the AF on the 600 could be slow for you. Other than that, it was the first and last EOS consumer camera that was actually built to rugged standards.

 

I had one a few years ago, and the only problem I had was the LCD light would not work properly.

 

If you can spend a couple more hundred dollars, get the EOS 1.

[pbizarro]

Just one last thought. No, you are not nuts. Your's is actually a refreshing post, from someone who is trying to be rational. In this day and age where people consider a 3000 USD full-frame DSLR camera to be cheap, it's nice to see someone being rational.

[ken munn]

Bravo - go for it.

 

I had a 630 as a back up to an EOS5, and it was fine. Never noticed dodgy autofocus myself,

but I wasn't using it for anything superdifficult.

[tjalf]

I would also recommend an EOS 5 over the 600 series. Over a year ago I bought a used EOS 5 for only EUR 75, so I'm sure you can get it for even less today. I hardly use it anymore since I bought a 350D, althought the EOS 5 is a much better camera in many respects, I guess except for the fact that it's not digital.

 

Good luck, Tjalf

[jan_thomas1]

I have owned EOS 5 (A2E), 10s and 650. All were decent cameras, but I would say go for the 5 before the 10s, and the 10s before the 650.

 

Other similar models would be the 100 (very much like the 10) and the 620 (a slighly better camera than the 650 and a couple more features (like an illuminated LCD panel)).

 

In fact the damn 650 got me hooked on this expensive photography hobby. I bought that body because I wanted a camera that would be good for astro work (bulb mode doesn't drain the battery), but I could use for general photograghy...

[luminous world]

I've been shooting with a 630 for years. Works great. Only 2 drawbacks for nature work: no mirror lockup and it's kind of heavy when you're backpacking. I use another lighter body when weight matters.

[jeffcallen]

If you're shooting wildlife, the Elan or 5 are both very quiet. They also have slightly better AF than the 630, which I once had - 630 required a strong vertical line sometimes to lock focus, so it hunted more often. 600 series are often using a hard to find battery, and are quite loud, but sturdy. I've seen Elans cheap on Ebay, and I really like mine.

[thomas_munch]

With some searching you should be able to find a better deal than $100. I bought a 650 in nice condition about a year ago for around $25.

 

--tom

[fourfa]

are there any lighter EOS film cameras that don't drain the battery in bulb mode?

[andrew robertson]

AF on even the earliest EOS camera is anything but slow. It isn't as fast as AF is nowadays,

but it isn't slow!

[kin_lau]

For use with a 300/4, I'd go for an A2/5 instead.

 

I have the 650 & A2 (both of which I got _after_ my dslrs for wide angles & as backup), and the A2 is a much better handling camera.

[rafael_franco]

I have a 630 that I use frequently I really like the camera but I think you can find one for lowers than $100. BTW I just paid that money to get mine fixed with a rewind problem.

[douglas_vitello]

I own a couple EOS 630s and find the autofocus just as quick and accurate as a later Elan II e I once owned and a heck of a lot better than my new digital Canon Pro 1.Evaluation metering is right on 95% of the time (one of the most accurate internal light meters I've ever used)and the partial metering button is very convenient.Like other posters have said - build quality and operation features are just slightly below the pro models.Manual metering is a real pain and all early EOS cameras have a problem with the shutter bumper turing to goo over time (about a $50 fix).Nonetheless,a great camera for the money.

[rob_murray]

Are these cameras too old? Are the autofocus systems effective? Any repair issues? thanks

 

No, not too old, the AF will be slower than the latest cameras but usable, search for EOS shutter bumper repair. I am confused. You are shooting with a canon F1 (manual focus FD system) with a Sigma 300mm lens currently? If so the lens will not fit any EOS system. If I read that wrong, never mind.

[john_r._pederson]

The 650 was my first Canon in 1988, I think. It was a tank, and I loved it. Finally broke

one night around a campfire when the whole tripod fell over and broke the mirror housing.

I've kept it, broken, as a keepsake. Nostalgically, I have held one at the counter wondering

if I should buy a working copy just for the memories.

 

Yes, the autofocus is old school, but it's a great camera. Good luck to you.

[matthew l. leach]

I shoot with a 500N - first SLR I ever bought. �40 for the body, 28-80 lens, UV screw-on filter and slot in filter system. I'm of the opiion that you're better off getting good glass, decent film and a decent lab to send them through than you are going mad on the body and ignoring the above.

 

My autofocus is fine, and in the 12 months I've owned it it hasn't had anything go wrong apart from the eyecup falling off. Blu-tack fixed that, which I don't exactly consider expensive.