EOS -3 vs. EOS 1-V AF Speed

[gary_s_meredith]

Has any one out there compared the E O S -3 to the new e o s 1-v

on auto focus speed useing lenses like the 100-400 is 500 f

4.0 is ect ?

<P>

<I>I think this topic is reasonably related to nature photography

as the 100-400mm and 500mm lenses are frequently used in wildlife work.

However, the right people who should follow up are those who have

<B>actual experience</B> with both the EOS-3 and EOS-1v so that they can

compare AF between those two bodies according to their real life

experience rather than speculations. Given that the EOS-1v is so new,

there may not be a lot of people with real experience with it though.

-- moderator SC</I>

[jeffrey_sink]

Good question. I actually have the exact equipment you describe: EOS-3 and a new EOS-V1 and I have the 100-400 IS and the new 500 F 4.0 IS tele. I am not convinced that the focus tracking in the V-1 is faster than that of the EOS-3, however, it is easier to use, in my opinion. I really like the ability to designate a "home" focusing point and switch to it instantly when focus lock becomes variable at one of the other 45 points. I dial in the central focus point as my home and switch to it when I need quick focus confirmation on my given target. I do believe that the V-1 compliments the new IS technology very well. I also believe that the V-I meters more accurately than the EOS-3. Is it worth the extra $1000 dollars for the high speed model, well we will see. I leave for Africa in two weeks and I plan to try its 10 frames per second motor on cheetahs and such. One last comment, IS technology on long lenses is incredible. Enough said.

[patrick_chase]

Hi Gary;

 

I use both the EOS-3 and EOS-1v, both with PB-E2 and NP-E2. My telephotos are the 70-200/2.8L, 300/2.8L IS, and 300/4L.

 

Both cameras are very fast at focus tracking, particularly when a single AF point is selected. The biggest difference I've observed between the two is that the 1v tends to yield "steadier" shooting rates when tracking than does the 3: Where the 3's frame rate tends to vary wildly as a function of how fast the subject is moving, the 1v chugs along at a steady rate. Canon's technical literature attributes this to the addition of an idle period to the 1v's shooting sequence (giving AF drive some extra time to complete if necessary) and argues that this results in a higher success rate when tracking because the camera "knows" more precisely when the next exposure will occur at the time that it makes its AF prediction. My own experiments suggest that the 1v is indeed more accurate (higher % of keepers in difficult situations) than the 3.

 

One other note: Both cameras yield noticeably higher accuracy (less tendency to break lock and follow the background, etc) when tracking with one or more of the AF array's cross sensors. This is a problem for the 100-400IS, because it is slower than f/4 and therefore can'tuse the cross arrays on either body.

 

-- Patrick

[mark_lagrange]

Geez Patrick!!! Cross arrays and autofucusing sensors...which lens they don't work with? I thought I was up on this stuff. Help me out here. Could you explain these cross arrays and why on some lenses and not others?

 

...and let me know when your product manuals come out. I'll buy one!

[kurt_heintzelman]

From the Canon EOS 1V Technical Overview, "...on the EOS 1V...seven high-performance cross-type sensors that operate with a maximum aperture of f2.8. However, for vertical-line focusing, the EOS 1V employs a sensor that operates with an aperture of f5.6. Canon had good reason to choose this sensor for vertical-line focusing: when presented with a uniform level of de-focus, an f5.6 sensor suffers less focal divergence than an f2.8 AF sensor. Thus, this system offers better subject-movement prediction. The cross-type sensor achieved both accuracy and improved subject-movement prediction, playing an integral role in the EOS 1V's high-precision AF system..."

[alan_yeo1]

It may interest you to note that I posed this question to the senior technical guy from Canon Japan who designed the 1V and he hesitated for a moment before concluding that the 1V is faster at AF. I gather from him that the AF dfference is marginal - definitely not very obvious.

[patrick_chase]

I've had business dealings with a lot of individuals who speak native languages other than mine (including Japanese), and the vast majority of the time hesitation on their part means they're either making sure they understood exactly what you said or making sure that their intended answer isn't subject to misinterpretation. This apoplies whether the conversation is taking place in your native language or in theirs.

 

In other words, don't infer anything from the ancilliary details of verbal communication (timing, inflection, etc) if you're dealing with someone from a different culture. It'll always backfire on you!

 

-- P

[ShunCheung]

Unfortunately, a Canon rep may not be the best person to pose this question to. It is like asking whether your older daughter or younger daughter is "better." The EOS-1v is newer and a much more expensive flag-ship model, so it should surprise no one that its AF technology is superior, although maybe just by a small margain that may or may not make a whole lot of difference in actual shooting conditions. Meanwhile, the EOS-3 is still very much a current model that Canon doesn't want to leave the impression that it is "inferior," relatively speaking.

 

I still think those Canon users who have actually used both bodies (but otherwise have no connections with Canon nor any camera stores that want to sell you what is on their shelf) are in the best position to answer this question.

[alan_yeo1]

Hmmm, maybe I should have elaborated a bit more. I asked a simple question to the man(not just any Canon rep) who helped designed the 1V(and probably the EOS3). He hesitated and then gave a positive reply. He explained why it was faster(the tracking bit) BUT also said that it may be "difficult to see the difference" since both shared the same technology. I believe he was being frank. Please don't misread this as indicating that the 1V is inferior to the EOS3 in any way. I have tested both cameras on their latest IS supertelephotos(300mm and 600mm) and found both cameras to be equally competent in AF. I did not specifically do a AF test but I certainly did not notice any big difference in AF.

[gary_voth]

The EOS-1v and EOS-3 do share similar AF and metering subsystems, but EOS-1v benefits from having a faster microprocesor clock speed and improved firmware. I have found these differences subtle at best under *normal* shooting conditions. In fact, unless you using the NP2 batteries at very high framing rates I'm not sure you'd see much difference in performance (this at least has been my experience using PB-E2s with lithium AAs).

 

But--as has been said--the EOS-1v does have some improved features/ergonomics and its build quality is really superb. The EOS-3 is a great camera though: you should try to rent both before you decide if the extra cost of the 1v is worth it.

[patrick_chase]

Just to clarify my previous response:

 

I only see a difference between the two bodies in the most difficult tracking situations (for example, tightly cropped upper-torso-only shots of oncoming cyclists - Even the 1v + 300/2.8IS combo can be pushed to the breaking point in that kind of situation...). For one-shot AF, every EOS body since the EOS 5/A2 has been more than adequate in my opinion, such that the differences aren't enough to be worth discussing.

[bugbob]

Hi Gary.

 

Here's a suggestion for you. We're friends and we live in

adjacent towns. You have an EOS-3. I have a 100-400 IS lens

and just received my EOS-1v body. Let's do some testing

ourselves. Bolsa Chica or Backbay perhaps?

 

-Bob Allen, rlallen@fullerton.edu

[bill_green2]

I know I'm a bit late on the discussion, but I'm surprised no one has commented on the obvious difference which is low light sensitivity. The 1v uses glass optics compared with the 3's molded plastic optics. The diference is most noticable in low light.