Digital successor to the EOS 3?

[john clark]

Hi everyone.

 

Back in January I bought a used EOS 3 body to keep my wife happy, as she fancied a film camera and it made sense

to get a Canon body to make use of the EOS lenses we have for our 10D.

 

In comparison to the 10D, the EOS 3 is very decisive in focusing and feels very snappy to use. I was wondering

whether there is a logical successor to the EOS 3 in terms of AF performance - in other words, a non-bulky dSLR

with very good AF and so on.

 

Sadly, I can only really see one possible choice - the 5D series - and so I wonder how I'd find a 5D (or 5D mkII)

would compare to the EOS 3? Having sampled what AF ought to be about, I can't see myself settling for any less

when the time comes to replace the 10D.

 

Lenses I use are: 17-40/4L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro and my latest addition, a 70-200/4L. All EF, not EF-S

so I don't really fancy the reduced frame route going forward...

 

Thanks,

 

John

[images_in_light_north_west]

A 1D series is the only real answer at the moment, although the 40-50D have pretty responsive auto focus, go try one at a local shop. I have no problems with the 5D, but I shoot landscapes.

Ross

[kenny_c]

I would have to say the 3 body is comparable to the 5D as far as focusing goes... the real advantage with the EOS 3 is the ruggedness and perhaps subject tracking for fast moving objects... but if you havent stated both those needs I think you will be

fairly satisfied with the 5D / 5DmkII

[squareframe]

I own two EOS-3's .. and I believe the 40D that I own is equivalent, disregarding ECF. sure, there are features the EOS-3 has that might be missed .. like the cumulative exposure metering and a few other goodies. but the 40D is built better I think, or as good, and has a really good metering system with spot-metering. it is considerably more quiet .. and just a durn-good camera!

 

feels good .. all my lenses seem to fit perfectly. would like a larger sensor, but no need for more pixels.

 

not much to complain about ... and it was cheap!

 

daniel taylor

[zml]

40D and 50D are better constructed and built than the EOS-3 but - of course - sport a different set of features and are

sub-frame. Assuming that Canon will make a DSLR equivalent of EOS-3, it may not happen anytime soon: EOS-3

came out over 9 years after the original EOS-1 so, considering that the EOS-1Ds came out in late 2002, the

speculative EOS-3D may show up until late 2011 (if ever...)

[PuppyDigs]

The 45 AF point array of the 1998 EOS 3 was the prototype AF system of the 1V and 1D series. There is nothing in Canon's lineup

that compares to EOS 3 AF except a 1D series camera. Oddly I was using my EOS 3 this past week and, hot damn, my

much newer 50D and 5D pale next to it. It's not the 50D or 5D have bad AF. It's just that the EOS 3 was so far ahead of its

time.

 

With all that said, I'd have to say the upcoming 5D II is probably the spiritual successor to the EOS 3: small but strong

semi-pro body, big bright VF, 3.9 FPS and a no nonsense interface.

[ujwal]

It is 5 series digitals.

 

in film era...3 was the "second best" when actually it was more advanced than 1.

 

ditto in digital. 5D is the "second best" so it does not get 1 designation, but it is just as good as 1 series in terms of IQ. The 5DII actually surpasses anything canon's got at the moment.

[jamie_robertson2]

I owned the EOS 3 and I wouldn't say it had much better AF than the likes of today's 40D. Yes, it was advanced for its time but the 40, 50D and 5D series will keep up with it IMO.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Regardless of image quality (which, back in the film days had more to do with what film we stuck in the camera) as far as focus, metering, and all around construction, the 5D isn't really a 5 at all, it's a 7.

 

I've always wondered why Canon does that. Nikon started making their F100 type (Nikon's parallel to a 3) DSLRs three years ago: D200 and D300.

[john clark]

Thanks, guys. I guess everything in the tea leaves points toward a 5D mkII in my future......

[yakim_peled1]

The EOS3 was the first of its kind: Semi pro body which is just the pro one (1v) but minus the grip. Sadly, Canon decided not to continue this trend and curiously, Nikon picked it up. The D200 was a D2X minus the grip and the D700 is a D3 minus the grip.

 

The 5D Mk II, 50D et al. are all very nice cameras but a successor to the EOS3 they are not.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ernie_targonski]

I'm with Yakim and Puppy Face. I have an EOS 3 and still use allot to this day. I also have a 30D, 40D, and Elan 7NE. IMHO, in no way shape or form does the AF on my 30D, 40D, or 7NE compare to the 45 point AF on my EOS 3. I have shot (but do not own) 1D series and cameras and their AF is more akin to my EOS 3. Without ever actually shooting a 5D or 5DmkII, I fail to see how 9 point AF can possibly compare with 45 point in AI servo. I too would love to have the digital equiv of my EOS 3. And as far a build quality, IMHO, the cameras I have don't even come close to my EOS 3.

Just my opinions. Your mileage may vary.

[squareframe]

that might be true .. however, personally and I suspect many others here use only the central AF point and take control over where they focus. I would rather have a single stellar AF point than dozens of less-capable points. I own two EOS-3's and EOS-1v and really enjoyed them. however, I must say that I'll be selling them and that I have been just as impressed with the AF on my 40D.

 

someone mentioned spot-metering at the selected AF-point. sure, the EOS-3 could do that but who meters exposes that way? it is one of those technically-feasible ideas that really doesn't hold up pragmatically in my view. to each their own .. but that would be an extremely slow metering process.

 

daniel taylor

[philip_wilson]

As omeone who has used the EOS 3 and a pair of 1Vs for many years (plus a 1NRS) i can inform you that the EOS3 is a super camera. I decided not to buy the 5D on using it in a store. It did not have the build quality of the EOS - despite being almost 3 times the new price. I have finally ordered a new 5D Mark II and I am sure it will be flimst in comparisson to the EOS3. It is remarkable that I can buy a used EOS 3 for about 1/10th of it's supposed replacement. In addition the 3 will go to 7 frames per second and has the 45 point AF. The EOS 5D Mark II has a slightly better metering system (35 point vs 21) but lacks the eye control which I like. Contraty to Yakim's comment the EOS3 will take the same drives as either the EOS 1N or the EOS 1V and could be bought with them. My main gripe is that digital has massive raised the price of bodies while making them obsolete much quicker. An EOS 3 was under $1000 new compared to $2700 for the 5D Mark II, a 1V was $1600 -$1800 compared to $8000 for the 1Ds Mark III. The 1V was also able to do the job of both the 1D and 1Ds - all you do is add or remove the drive. To me there is room for an EOS 3D - after all there was a film EOS 5 as the A2E was sold as the EOS 5 outside North America

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I still have my original EOS-3s, each fitted with power boosters. Great cameras.

 

But, my "daily users" are a pair of 30D with a 10D as backup. I'll probably replace the 30Ds with 50Ds in the new

year. I might also add a 5D MkII. Unsure about that... I don't like that it can't share batteries and the control

layout is different. But, otherwise it seems a fine camera and great value.

 

They aren't the same, but these are all quite capable cameras.

 

Sheer number of AF points is not that big a deal to me. I almost always dialed my EOS3 down to 11 points anyway,

often with spot metering linked to the AF point. I found that very useful, so here's one person who used it *a

lot* Daniel.

 

I was never all that successful with ECF, so the lack of it on the later cameras doesn't bother me a bit. It

hasn't been turned on on my EOS3s since about 6 months or less after I first bought them.

 

The AF of the 50D and 5D remind me of the Elan. I used a 7N (E, with it turned off) a bit too. Similar pattern of

points. These were EOS-30/33 and 30N/33N in the rest of the world, I think.

 

The 50D's pattern is pretty good. The 5D MkII's seems awfully clumped in the center. I wish Canon would spread

the pattern out a bit, so the corner points at least reach the 'rule of thirds" intersections.

 

However, this isn't a deal killer for me, either. Ever since learning about it, I've been a big used of the *

button, single focus point method. It just takes a little practice and should be even easier on the later cameras

with their "AF On" button.

 

I find many reasons to like both the 50D and the 5D MkII. Today I pretty only shoot film when a job demands it,

which is getting rarer and rarer. Okay, I still like to take out the old EOS-3 and several other vintage kits and

shoot a few rolls of B&W or slides in my off season, but that's for fun and not work related. I do think it helps

me get back into some good disciplines, that I get lax about when shooting digital. But, I hate scanning film

these days. Direct digital capture seems so much better, and is a huge time saver.

 

So, there isn't really a directly comparable camera to the EOS-3 in the digital lineup. The full frame 5D or 5D

Mk II probably come the closest. They are both great cameras, so it's just a matter of learning how to get the

best out of them and the fine points of differences between them and the EOS-3.

 

Someone wanting a higher frame rate and willing to live with a cropper, or actually appreciating it for what it

"can do" for their tele lenses, might opt for the 50D instead.

 

Incidentally, the full name of the digital cameras are EOS 50D, EOS 5D, etc.

 

I'm sure some day we'll see an EOS 3D. In fact, it might be sooner rather than later. In a sense, Canon really

needs offer an entry, mid and top level full frame cameras now (due to competition), and the 3D model name would

oh so conveniently dovetail right in between the 5D and 1D/1Ds. The Canon marketing folks would surely love it!

[squareframe]

"Sheer number of AF points is not that big a deal to me. I almost always dialed my EOS3 down to 11 points anyway, often with spot metering linked to the AF point. I found that very useful, so here's one person who used it *a lot* Daniel." --Alan Myers

 

as I mentioned, whatever works. however, just because the feature exists doesn't imply it is useful!

 

so let's explore this. give me an example where you found spot-metering on an arbitrary AF point, beneficial. I am assuming that you are allowing the camera to focus, without interaction from you. true? and now, you have auto-focused on a point that may have nothing to do with your very-tight spot metering. of course, this also implies exposure-compensation.

 

we all work in our own way, and that is important. however, I want to to meter where I want, and focus where I want. to me, that is far more control than a 45 or 11-point AF matrix. I use the center AF-point, that is more sensitive and yields the exact control I require. now it has been almost a decade, but as I recall you could focus, and link the spot-meter to any of 45 or 11 AF-points. it never was clear to me how that would work in a real-world sense.

 

another interesting feature is the spot-averaging technique. as I recall you can take eight or so spot-meterings and average them. two spot metering .. reasonable and workable. more than that .. explain how this is would work. remember, it is true averaging .. so there must be a pre-ordained scheme to result in anything useful. a fun feature .. that quickly took a nose-dive from a pragmatic viewpoint.

 

perhaps it is simply two disparate schools of thought. for me, it is anathema to let the camera AF by its own design, with a mind of its own.

 

one other comment .. I have noticed that the evaluative-metering on the 40D is very, very, good. much better in my opinion that on my EOS-3 and EOS-1v. perhaps that is why I never used it then. having instant evaluation in the digital mode is a blessing in regards to evaluating metering idiosyncrasies.

 

cheers,

 

dt

[joseph_wisniewski]

"It did not have the build quality of the EOS - despite being almost 3 times the new price."

 

Folks, you've got to learn the "new math".

 

The 5D is not 3x the price of a new EOS 3.

 

The 5D is the price of an Elan 7 + 400 roles of 36 exposure film and processing. You just have to pay for all your film and processing up front. There's a bit of a gamble in this. For the 50 roll/year shooter, it sucks. For the 1000 roll/year shooter, it's bloody great. The 1000 roll/year shooter can buy a 1Ds III and come out ahead of the game, compared to buying 1000 rolls of film plus a rebel, let alone what it would cost to up the game to EOS 7, 3, or even 1v.

[john clark]

Joseph, that's an interesting way of thinking about it. To everyone else, thanks again.

 

John

 

PS. I am sitting here with my 10D and my 3, and I am certain that the build quality is superior in the 10D. Which makes me a bit confused about the couple of people who suggested that more recent EOS dSLRs fall some way behind the 3 in build quality..... most confusing...

[yakim_peled1]

WRT AF with the outer AF points, the 40D/50D is better than the 5D/5D Mk II as they are cross type. Another benefit of these cameras is that the outer AF points are closer to the edges of the frame, thereby giving you better frame coverage.

 

WRT spot metering, unfortunately only in the 1 series you can link it to the active AF point. In Nikon however.... :-(

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[anthony_thornborough1]

"40D and 50D are better constructed and built than the EOS-3"

 

Rubbish. They are comparable, but the DSLRs also fall into the slighty-fragile category. The '3 was tough.

 

Am disappointed with my 40D next to the old film 3, but that's probably more to do with finding the 17-40 L turning into a 28-65 equivalent, and losing gain on my 24-70 L.

 

I would suggest the 5DII route.

[lilserenity]

A fun anecdote:

 

I've had to knock in tent pegs in once with my EOS 3 when hiking....

 

Not ideal but it worked. The look on everyone else's faces though was amusing to say the least.

 

In terms of build quality I've handled the EOS 30D and 40D (not the 50D), as well as the 5D and 1DMkII and the

EOS 3 has felt every bit comparable to me, but then I don't know exactly how the latter digitals would fare

everyday (not owning them) but the EOS 3 of mine has taken a good deal of beating and use with barely a blemish

on it.

 

I would say the EOS 5D/5DII are close but the closest in function and build (weathersealing etc.) would be

something like a 1D series. Although a 40D would be fine, but the wide lenses you have would become only fairly

wide-normal.

 

I'll buy a spare EOS 3 next year, they're that good. (I do mostly b+w so the processing and printing is done by

me and that makes it good value)

[squareframe]

I must admit the tent-peg option was a good one to have. the composite body, hated by many, actually seemed to work out rather well. I was once attacked by dozen hoodlums in a dark alley in San Miguel de Allende, and used my two EOS-3's on a bola to defend myself.

 

having said that, I did wish along with the ten-peg option Canon had offered a diopter-adjustment and viewfinder-blockout. yes I know .. ECF, which was great as a novelty until reality settled in regarding acutally 'photographing', where I went to the sensitive central-sensor only and never looked back.

 

having said that, I had more pleasure photographing with my EOS-3 than any other camera other than my Hasselblad (which is a labour of love .. fun, in a perverse sense). I rarely used my EOS-1v when I got it. still loved the '3' ... probably for the focus screen. I don't really know .. but it was a good time.

 

bola usage not recommended and not honoured by Canon warranty.

 

dt