EOS IV vs. EOS 10D vs. EOS 3

[marc_smith2]

I am looking for the camera with the best auto focus in low

light and less shutter lag. I have one a 70-200 2.8L IS, 50mm 1.4

and a 28-135 IS. Most of my shots are with a bracket mounted 550EX

flash. I do candid low light people photography, landscapes, tripod

mounted macro type shots, and I also travel with my camera.

 

After reading though the forum and asking a question I realize

that although the EOS IV is a better camera, it proves to be a

significant refinement over the EOS 3 only for some.

 

The EOS 10D is a newer camera, thus, has newer electronics and

should have better performance? Also, the price is very close to the

price of the Eos IV.

 

Format aside, which is going to offer the least shutter lag and

faster auto focus performance in low light? I am leaning toward the

IV, but like most people I am not sure that the marginal improvement

over the EOS 3 is worth almost twice the price. I called Canon for

some info, and their answer was rather confusing, saying it was an

apple to orange comparison. I do not see it that way; the function

of the camera is more interesting to me than the format. If the EOS

IV or 3 has better low-light auto focus is it just a slight

improvement or is it substantial?

 

I have read that the Eos 10D has focusing and interface similar to

the Elan 7. If this is true, then why are people switching by the

boatloads to this camera? For the price of a IV, it appears that you

get a compromise in auto focus performance, and possibly shutter lag.

I suppose I am to assume that people are putting up with the

shortcoming of the 10D because it makes processing cheaper? Or is it

that the 10D focuses "almost" as well as the Eos 3 or IV?

 

I really do not care what format the camera is; I just want reliable,

fast, auto focus especially in low light. So in summary, the thesis

is, how does auto focus and shutter lag of the EOS 10D stack up

against the EOS 3 and IV, format aside? If the EOS 3 will smoke the

10D in auto-focusing, then why is everyone selling his or her EOS 3

to get a 10D?

[steve_strawn]

This has to be one of the wierder questions I have ever seen. In spite of how you feel, to 99.95% of photographers format is not irrelevant. Why is it a 'Blad or Leica that has no autoexposure or autofocus is thousands of dollars? Certainly a Canon Rebel with its modern electronics should be more.

 

Anyway, to answer your question the 1v (not IV) is the fastest followed by the 3 and then the 10D.

[marc_smith2]

When I say format is not relevant, I am referring the diference between 35mm and digital.

 

The pro lab that prints my photos already scans the negatives and prints from the scan. So, either way, the end result is printed from a digital image.

 

Your response states the that the 10D is the slowest. If this is the case, then why do so many people appear to be dumping the EOS 3 for a 10D? I am "assuming" that the disadvantages of the 10D are overshadowed by the fact that it is digital, and the prints print as well as 35mm?

[bobatkins]

You do know the 10D is digital right? 22 x 15mm sensor? People buy it because it's DIGITAL, not because it has any other particularly desirable features not available elsewhere.

 

If you don't care if you shoot full frame 35mm film or reduced frame 6MP digital, then your situation is indeed very odd and I'm not surprised Canon were confused.

 

The 1v is fastest, the EOS-3 not far behind and the 10D comes last.

[NK Guy]

>I really do not care what format the camera is; I just want reliable, fast, auto focus

especially in low light

 

Okay. So get a cheap EOS film camera and stick a Speedlite flash on it. The patterned

AF assist light on the flash will help autofocus in even pitch black conditions.

[mike_kim]

"How does auto focus and shutter lag of the EOS 10D stack up against the EOS 3 and IV, format aside?"

 

In terms of focusing speed and shutter lag (smaller the better):

 

EOS 1V is fastest < EOS 3 almost same as 1V (slightly slower only in few limited cases) < EOS Elan 7 (since you mentioned this camera), < EOS 10D (similar to EOS Elan 7 in under bright light, sometimes slightly slower in dimmer light).

 

Now, why people are buying 10D and selling their 1V and 3? Mainly due to 1) cost and 2) convinience! If you need to have your pictures in digital format for publishing or for web, processing slides and negatives, then scanning takes just too long and too costly. Ask any pro or advanced amatures. On an any given shooting senario, I would say I get about 33% of good pictures on average, which implies 67% films are wasted due to mis-framed, blinked-eyes, improper exposures and shaken/not-focused. On digital, cost is a minimum since virtually none is wasted (assuming you have descent sized memory). You only need to pay for the good prints you are making. Now the second point (convinience), if you need to scan the negatives or slides all the time, it is impractical to shoot it with 35mm. Scanning in films and touching up is very time consuming and tidious process even with FARE and Digital ICE. (I owned CanoScan FS4000US with SCSI interface, but it still take me 6 minutes to scan 4 slides and I still need to touch some of them up). Two other IMPORTANT pros for using 10D/1D/1Ds are color accuracy (no film come even close to digital in color accuracy, especially under mixed light) and immediate results (you can check the preview on LCD and reshoot if you need).

 

For a casual photographer who wants to make only 4X6 or 5X7 prints and can afford to wait for film processing, Rebel Ti, Elan 7, or EOS 3 will be more than adequate. (In my humble opinion, 1V will be over-kill for MOST of casual amature shooters; EOS 3 should be more than adequate.) For occasional shooters, film is more cheaper and economical. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should go digital, I'm merely explaining why some people are willing to pay 1,450 USD for digital body and call it economical. I myself still prefer 35mm since I like to shoot slides and view them in lightbox with good 4X/10X loupes. Most of my clients (weddings and portraits) still ask me to shoot with 35mm too. Just my 8KB worth!

 

For some professional or amatures who need to have patient and time to wait for negati

[PuppyDigs]

"the 10D is the slowest. If this is the case, then why do so many people appear to be dumping the EOS 3 for a 10D?"

 

I think for many AF speed is a minor issue. I actually enjoy using manual focus--it stays puts while I adjust composition and exposure. Many of us keep our film gear and shoot both film and digital. You can walk on both sides of the fence and enjoy the best of both worlds. With that said, I get equally good results with my MF FM3A as my EOS 10D. Of course, I take my time so rippin' fast AF is a non issue.

[gerry_szarek]

Coming from a Leica and Hexar RF, all the canon's s*ck from a focusing point of view IMO, shutter lag, the canon's are blown away by any of Leica / Hexar RF's.

 

So why do I own a 10d. Convenience for one, taking photos of my 2 kids on vacation blasted at least a 1000 pics of them got 10 really good ones, do you think my wife would have let me take 40 rolls of film of the kids, burn the other 99% to CD's and stickem in a filing cabinent. Cost do you think I can aford $10 a roll for film / developing / printing? When I visit friends / at a birthday party / social gathering I can blast of 250 pictures upload them to OFOTO or burn a CD, cost to me under $1. People think I am great, they can see their pictures that night or the next morning.

 

So the short version if you want focusing accuracy get a Leica (I am doning my nomex flame suit now), you want no shutter lag again get a Leica (the suit is now on), you want convience and low cost get a 10d. Film camera's except from an artistic point are dead, take a look on Eb*y at the prices of medium format gear.

 

GS

[chi_confucious]

I first got the EOS 10D then a EOS 3 for film. I switched from Minolta and still needed a film camera. Anyhow, the EOS 3 is faster than the EOS 10D. More importantly, it's more precise. Afterall, the EOS 3 has 45 autofocus points versus 7 on the 10D. In addition, EOS 3 has more focus sensitivity in darkness shooting at EV -0 vs the 10D which is EV +.5.

[marc_smith2]

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Earlier this year I shot some photos of a friend's kid�s birthday. It was outdoors, from evening until dark. I had an Elan II, and a 70-200 2.8L IS with a bracket mounted 550 flash. I had trouble tracking some of the shots, and as the light faded out into dusk, I pretty much lost auto focus entirely. Not to mention the shots I missed that were composed and ready to shoot, but the shutter would not fire.

 

I started out on an entirely Minolta SRT-202 I if I recall, and 50mm 1.8 lens. I actually prefer this camera to an auto focus camera, EXCEPT for the fact that most of the people I photograph are terribly impatient; my sister in particular developed a loathing for pictures for that very reason. So I am guessing that for candid type shots, faster focus and less shutter lag could save some photos, and keep impatient people happy.

 

I suppose I will take a closer look at the Leica's then. Less obtrusive, and less shutter lag, but then your stuck with manual focus. For me manual focus appears to be best for inanimate stationary subjects.

 

My argument for film is that it appears to be more archival than digital. I have also read that given time and technology, better methods of scanning can be found, thus leaving the possibility of results better than the 10D. Funds provided, I would already have both an Eos 3 or Iv and a 10D. Right this moment I can get any of the three.

 

The situations I am thinking of particularly are weddings, and gradation type events, were there is less than ideal lighting.

 

Perhaps I should seek out someone who has a 10D, from all the hype it seems they could easily sway me toward digital.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

[c_j3]

From the way you framed your question, it seems that you were leaning toward film from the start, and that's perfectly legitimate. But then you seem to confuse things, and that's also understandable. Your AF/shutter-lag question is a digital vs. film question in disguise, but it stands on uneven ground. Just as you said that the 1V "proves to be a significant refinement over the EOS 3 only for some," so it is with the latest advances in prosumer digital photography vs. state-of-the-art film photography. You seem to have already decided that the 10D is a step down from the 3, in the same way the 3 is a step down from the 1V. Yes, that's one way of looking at it, but a better way would be to compare Canon's best digital, the 1Ds, with its best film model, the 1V, since the 1Ds is based on the 1V and the 10D is not.

 

The 10D fills the $6,500 void in Canon digital SLR photography that lies between the have-everythings and the have-somethings. It gives photographers near-total control over their output. It is an affordable digital SLR that produces images rivaling those of film SLRs, and because of this people like me are willing to sacrifice a few bells and whistles for a while until technology gives them a full-frame digital 1V with the same price tag as the film version. Or preferably a smaller one!

 

Not everyone is selling their film cameras when they get their 10Ds. In fact, I bought my EOS-3 afterward when I realized how much I liked wide-angle photography. If all you're looking for is "reliable, fast AF especially in low light," then the 3 is your answer. No digital darkroom expenses and archival/storage hassles, but no instant gratification and self-correction either. And no photos camera-ready for the Internet, printing, and e-mail.

 

"Format aside"? If format doesn't matter, then why not shoot without film or CF cards? I think you answered your own question. It's film.

[pboraschi]

Well if you are concerned about focusing inthe dark then get the 1v. Or better, go on

Ebay and find your self the original EOS 1 for around 500$. It beats the 10D & D60

auto focusing by far. Plus if you are shooting candid shots by night you'll get 8 frames

per sec....

[x]

Having used all three cameras I'd recommend the 1v as having the fastest and most reliable autofocus. My experience with the 3 was an unhappy one and I found its focussing accuracy with some lenses (50/1.4, 85/1.8)to be poor. The 10D also has accuracy problems with some lenses (e.g. 35/2) - I'm still investigating this. The 10D speed is fine, though, and with many lenses the 10D overall seems good.

 

There are many reasons why photographers may be dumping the 3 in favour of the 10D. Digital has a good many advantages over film. Two not mentioned in this thread are the ability to change ISO speed between frames, and the 10D image quality at higher ISO speeds (400 and higher) in my opinion walks all over slide films in terms of general clarity, colour and sharpness. Film is still good for wide-angle shots, projection of slides and long term storage/filing/longevity.