Jump to content

Which EOS film body for a digital owner?


phil_combs

Recommended Posts

<p>I own an EOS 7d and got the notion to shoot some film again. I thought it might be smart to get an EOS film body and use my other EOS lenses (that are compatible with both film/digital) with it. My question is which would be the 'best' body to get? I saw a Rebel Ti in a thrift store for a reasonable price but it's plastic, light feel put me off. I've heard some good things about the EOS Elan 7/7E, but for some reason those haven't held their resale value well and I'm wondering if there's some major flaw that contributes to that?</p>

<p>Any and all input on the topic is appreciated.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shot with the Elan 7E and 7NE for years and the only major "flaw" is they need film, hence their low value on the market. The 2004 7NE was Canon's last film camera design and sported the best implementation of ECF and was the only film camera to have E-TTL 2 (the Elan 7E used E-TTL). Also, the 7NE only cost $350 new at introduction in 2004 (well that's what I paid at B&H). I recall having a difficult time selling a mint one for $125 in 2006 with remote and a dozen rolls of Portra 160!</p>

<p>Realize the Elan 7 is mostly plastic. The aluminum body panels on the front and top make it seem a wee bit more beefy than pure plastic but it's more like a veneer. The chassis, film door and latch are plastic as is the bottom and the darn battery door hinge. Luckily polycarbonate plastics are stronger than many metals and flex and absorb shock better than metal when dropped.</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said, the EOS 3 is a very good camera and also has the advantage of having a feel and heft similar to

your 7D. However, it can be fun to get hold of the lightest, crappiest, smallest & most plasticky body you can find, put

some film in it and a half-decent lens on it and see how it works out. It'll cost practically nothing. By and large it's the film, the lens and the photographer that will determine the result, not the camera. There's no difference in resolution or noise between an EOS 3 and the simplest Rebel, if the film and lens are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used to have a 1V, a 3, and a 7E. For the money (at the time) the EOS 3 was the best. The 1V had a very primitive way of saving EXIF data, unfortunately, Canon no longer supports the software.<br>

I recently sold my 1V for 700 and my 7E for 50 (Amazon still sells new 1V's for 1600!). I would say find a 3. That being said, nothing beet the sound and feel of the 1V.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I loved the feel, AF and VF of my old EOS 3. However, the film advance and mirror slap is not for those with sensitive ears. It was the loudest camera I have ever owned. Because of the noise, I usually reached for my Elan 7 series over the EOS 3 unless I was using big glass or shooting in bad weather.</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me the EOS 1V is the most enjoyable film camera I have used. It's big and heavy but it just feels right.</p>

<p>The EOS 30V (Elan 7NE) is also nice and is smaller and quieter than the EOS 1V.</p>

<p>Incidentally the 30V (7NE) was not Canon's last SLR film camera; that was the EOS 300X (Rebel T2) in Sept 2004, which also had E-TTL II. The 300X is very small and light, and feels like a toy compared to the 1V, although it still takes good pictures.</p>

<p>On the odd occasion I put down the EOS 7D and use film I pick up the EOS 1V.</p>

<p>Henry</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've thought about this as well, and the question has come up several times previously. The EOS 3 seems to be the consensus "best value," while the 1V is the favorite of those who want Canon's "best ever" 35mm film camera and a larger camera as well. However, for the last several weeks I've been scanning a large collection of slides taken over the last 35 years. After this experience and comparing slides scanned on a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 (i.e., a very good scanner) with output from my 1DsMk3, I no longer see any reason or have any desire to go back to 35mm film again. A good digital camera just runs circles around 35mm film in every conceivable way (IMO), and nostalgia just isn't enough justification for me to spend several hundred dollars on a 35mm film body, film, and film processing. Medium format film still holds appeal, but that's a whole new system, two of which I recently sold (oh, that 501cm Hasselblad was nice!), and I'm not going back there either. After my present slides are scanned, the scanner will be sold, I'll be forever digital (and I used to love film), and it will undoubtedly take a year or so for me to be fully convinced that I've made the right decision.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>EOS 100 is also good camera with incredibly quiet film transport....and was used e.g by Helmut Newton.<br>

EOS 620 and 630 is worth mention too. all of them you can have for almost nothing</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@Stephen</p>

<p>you didn't mention that initial costs of EOS 1DsMk3 is like 7000$.<br>

cost of good analog body is more or less 100$ - do the math....<br>

yeah, I know - whole additional cost of films and developing and so on...<br>

soft, hard drives, PC cost too and I dare to say that even more.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Martin, you make a very good point about the overall cost, one that I've made many times. I think I've spent far more on digital equipment than I ever did on film equipment. I make this response when people gush over the fact that they no longer have to spend money to get film processed because they're using a digital camera. I think they are fooling themselves. IMO, digital is far more expensive.</p>

<p>My primary preference for digital is simply based on image quality (and to some extent convenience and instant feedback), even though it is more costly. The one area where film continues to shine, so to speak, is when the sun is in the frame. Film runs circles around digital in being able to record smooth tonal transitions in the vicinity of a very bright light source like the sun.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like Tom Burke's response: get a cheapo EOS Rebel and go out and have fun with it. You can pick one up for less than the cost of a five-pack of film. Sometimes much less. Last year, I sold an original Rebel -- the very first one Canon made -- because I just wasn't using it anymore. However, that camera had a fair amount of sentimental value attached to it. I bought it for my wife in 1990 when she was pregnant with our daughter, the idea being that she would need a decent, easy to use camera for baby pics and such. The original Rebel did not have a pop-up flash so I also splurged and bought her the (at that time) top of the line EOS flash, the 420EZ, my reasoning being that we might as well get a good one, especially since I knew I'd be using that camera too. Well, that cheezy little plasticky Rebel lasted for 20 years, and was still going strong when I sold it. And here's another thing -- of all the pics we took with that camera, I can't recall any off hand where I'd fault the camera for the pics not coming out right.</p>

<p>I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned the EOS-1n. That would be my first choice. Built like a tank, it was an F4 killer with its superior AF speed. Plenty fast enough for me, at any rate. Plus they are plentiful on feebay and can be had in decent condition sometimes for less than $200.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Permission to revise and extend my remarks:</p>

<p>Now that I think about it, I did have a spot of trouble with that Rebel I mentioned above -- and this is a problem that is common to many EOS cameras that are, say, 10 or 12 years old or more. There is (or at least was) a foam pad at the bottom of the slot that the shutter travels in that, over time, slowly turns to goo and works its way up on the shutter blades. This will cause "capping" -- where the second curtain catches up with the first and only a portion of the frame is exposed, and eventually will cause the shutter to hang. This began to happen with my Rebel several years ago, and I took a handful of cotton swabs and some isopropyl alcohol to the shutter. I would swab it, let the alcohol dry, then trip the shutter a bunch of times, which would cause the goo to work its way back onto the blades. Then I'd repeat the processe: swab, let dry, trip the shutter a bunch. I continued to do this until there were no more traces of goo, even after tripping the shutter for at least a 36-exposure rolls worth.</p>

<p>I've since learned that what the repair techs will often do to rid an EOS camera of this problem is to cut up a business card into strips and pass a strip underneath the shutter to push out the goo from there. This is a better way to do it because it gets rid of it permanently, but you still have to swab the shutter to get rid of what's on the blades. I also own an Elan IIe (another good choice, imo) and if/when it begins to exhibit this problem, I'll do the business card fix to it.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
<p>Many thanks to all who responded to my question. Wow--what a lot of great information! It will depend, of course, on what I find but I think I'll go for an Elan 7ne or an EOS-3. The eye-controlled focus sounds like it'll be a fun feature to play with. I'm sorry that Canon hasn't seen fit to include it in their digital line.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...