lilserenity

Hiya,

 

I have searched the archives and gleaned a lot of useful information to narrow down the following decisions but I

was wondering if any one has had prior experience...

 

By way of quickly introducing the premise, in a month's time (just under in fact) I will be walking the South

Downs Way in Southern England, which is 100 miles in length from Winchester to Eastbourne. I actually live part

way along just south of the trail in Worthing, so I know the trail pretty well but all the same I have never

walked it in one go before, and will not be using any motorised transport. In other words -- this is a pretty big

deal for me, I'm very excited and very much intenht on capturing this properly. As such I will be taking my Canon

EOS 3 in tow.

 

I am a pretty experienced amateur photographer and have been passionate about black and white from a young age

and mostly shoot in black and white. In that time I mostly shoot Tri-X, FP4, HP5 or XP2. I do sometimes try dip

into something else but that is the bulk of my work.

 

My immediate idea was to order at my local shop 10 rolls of HP5 as I think that I will appreciate the extra speed

and the feel of grain in the photos, I'm not out to create the most grain free photos here! The eventual outcome

is to create a photo book, about 8x10 in size and have it done up properly, I may even 'self publish' it but it's

more of a document for me and my family and friends than anything.

 

Looking around I've held off from ordering the HP5 as I have also this crazy notion of trying something new

having been impressed by comments on here and results I have seen on-line and to some degree in person.

 

Lens wise I'm not 100% certain yet but I think it is very likely I will be taking two manual focus Takumar lenses

(via M42 mount), a 35mm Super Multi-Coated at f/2 and my beloved early 60s pre-set Tak 135mm f/3.5 which is a

wonderful piece of glass. Into that I also pretty much expect to take the 70-200 f/4L but the jury is out.

Essentially I have some half decent glass which always gives me good results so really my concern now is the film.

 

I'm wondering specifically, has anyone here got experiences of Fomapan 400 and Agfa APX 400 when used for

landscape purposes? I can actually still get hold of some APX 400 and having only really taken a vested proper

interest in photography since 2004, I didn't get to experience any of Agfa's films before they went out of

manufacture. I have been also suitably impressed by the results from Fomapan 400 but have read warnings about

sometimes rather thin negatives that have a tendency to curl, but the results I have seen with it have been

rather excellent.

 

I can get 10 rolls of either for pretty much the same as I can for HP5.

 

Are there any other walkers who have a preferred film that is good for dramatic landscapes, but also doubles up

as good for pleasing and warm portraits?

 

My head's in a bit of spin trying to make sure I get it right, but I'm being adventurous in daring to at least

even think of something other than my Ilford faithfuls! I'd generally say that slower than ISO 400 would perhaps

not be considered as some of the work I can see being done in low light handheld situations. (Although I do have

a couple of rolls of Neopan 1600 and FP4 knocking around which I'm sure to take anyway!)

 

Many thanks,

Vicky

I'm all for whatever people get along with best.

 

I still use film in my EOS 3, mostly because I do a lot of black and white but I

do enjoy shooting slide film still. The EOS 3 replaced my defunct EOS 5 in

December which lasted me a good few years (12 years I think) and the 3 was ﾣ150

with 12 months warranty in Exc++ condition, all caps etc, just some minor

hot-shoe marks. It has a few more scratches now but I work the thing hard.

 

Overall, I'd have to look at a 5D for something of near-equal calibre and I

would loose the weatherproofing the 3 has (to a degree) and I find the button

interface better than a dial (a big step up on my old 5.) There are other things

like multi-spot metering but I'm not saying the 5D is a bad camera. Nuh uhh.

 

I just enjoy working in the dark room, for me it's all part of the experience

but I'm old enough and probably ugly enough now to know that so long as someone

is happy with how they do something then let them be.

 

I have shot digital and still do on occasion and don't have any problem with it

at all, if you're happy with your work, and how you go about it, and you

actively enjoy it -- then that's the main thing for me.

Hiya,

 

I have searched and couldn't find an exact answer so here goes. Hope I don't

tread on anyone's toes :-)

 

I own an EOS 3 and very happy with it too, at one point I did consider getting

an FD mount Canon, but realised I would end up owning too much camera stuff, so

I'm keeping things simple! I'm looking at getting an FD mount adapter, one that

will loose infinity focus but will allow me to shoot more or less wide open (so

say f/2.5-2.8 on this lens.) Infinity focus is not a requirement for me as I

would be using the adapter to get a good affordable portrait lens.

 

I like the 135mm aspect, as I do a lot of black and white work (using shooting

Tri-X, XP2 or FP5) and want to get a good quality portrait lens. I have in my

arsenal so far a 50mm f/1.8 II and a 70-200mm f/4L -- not much but very much

useful. In an ideal world I would get a 135mm f/2 EF but realistically I am

saving for the 28-70mm f/2.8 (which I can get cheaper than a 24-70.)

 

My question is quite simple, I'm adept at manual focussing, I don't have the

split focussing screen I could get for my EOS 3; but I love portraiture work

with manual focus, just seems so much more 'intimate.' (I'm sure someone in

this area will agree, no need to preach here!)

 

I can get a 135mm f/2.5 breech lock s.c FD for about ﾣ35 (so ~$70USD) and it's

in super condition, smooth focussing ring, no scratches on the front or rear

elements, a few very minor scuffs on the barrel but overall looks nice.

 

Is this a good lens to shoot at f/2.5 or f/2.8 (maybe up to f/4 even)? I'm not

expecting pin sharpness, just good resolution, crispness I would guess, nice

bokeh and something that will give me a decent portait telephoto lens?

 

I'd be virtually always shooting in aperture priority mode (I very rarely use Tv)

 

Thanks in advance!

Vicky

Hi Karl,

 

Thanks, I already have the 50 f/1.8 II so I know how useful f/2 is to me in my work so I think I've sold myself on this to be sure, with also meaning I can use front mounted filters, use my existing EOS 3 and also have auto-focus.

 

It'll certainly be good to shoot gigs with a wider angle lens than the 50 (which I have to say is just superb for the money, sure the 1.4 is better but, I've been investing time in technique and experience, rather than finances so far in my photography--although I do wish I had the money to just buy L series glass like that!)

 

That said though, I do walk a lot (like I walked 25 miles in two days around London, and that's hard going... roughly like walking from one side of London to the other (the equivalent of walking M25/M4 west junction to A13/M25 junction in the east--which is probably nearer 30 miles but it's a hell of long way) and the lighter the better as I often have a heavy back pack and heavy lenses are always a test of my neck!

 

Vicky

 

Thanks again,

Vicky

I have had a bit of luck today at work as I've found out I can sell some annual leave I would have otherwise carried over (only 4 days worth but still something) -- as such it looks like I have two options after reviewing all the very helpful and excellent advice, thank you also Mark for that superb link, I shall be looking at that website closely tonight but particularly intrigued at the performance of the Zuiko f/2.8. Certainly the 40mm Zuiko f/2.8 on the Trip 35 I have is fantastic and really makes the camera (as ever.)

 

Anyway I think two realistic choices are emerging for me here, as I think apart from an older lens, I'd like to stay with Canon -- particularly seeing as the Sigma did prove to not be entirely compatible with my EOS 3. Granted I got my money's worth out of the Sigma on my defunct EOS 5!

 

So if you had the choice, I would have about ?380 which would enable me to:

 

- Get a brand new 17-40 f/4L from the UK (it's in fact about ?380) so I'd have the warranty etc.

 

- Get a second hand with 1 year warranty 20-35mm USM f/3.5-4.5 in Exc++ condition, with hood and box from a local dealer that I know and trust *and* a brand new 35mm f/2.

 

I'm leaning towards the latter as the 35mm f/2 could be a real boon to my low light and street work; and the 20-35mm gives me lots of wide angle opportunity, no overlap and seemingly good sharpness, contrast and colour reproduction at f/8-11 (which is fine for my landscape needs.)

 

Given the choice - what would you go for? I must admit I have pretty much sold myself on the 20-35 + 35 route.

 

Thanks,

 

Vicky

I've also read about a 20-40mm Sigma lens. I think its discontinued but seems to go for a good price and most importantly takes front mounted filters which the 15-30mm can't (unless I remove the hood which will cause vignetting on the EOS 3 being well uhh full frame!)

 

Looks to go for a decent price too, my budget - anyone with any experience on this lens?

Wow some great information there, I'm so happy you have been able to help me out. The bottom line is that if I had the money, I'd get the 17-40mm in a heartbeat; as I know anything else will be a compromise. The question is how long can I go with just the 50mm lens. I'm just very short right now as I'm trying to get some savings together this year and the car its yearly service, MOT and taxing...

 

Taking this in, it's unlikely I'll be able to afford tyhe 17-40mm for about a year but second hand could be a good place to start and I am keeping my eyes peeled. Basically I acknowledge that I have to spend money to get good quality so I'm not expecting a wonderful ?150 lens to cure all ills as it were :) So the 17-40L isn't out, but it's lagging a bit budget wise.

 

The 24-70 whilst interesting sounds like it'll be too expensive for my budget, although I notice Sigma has a 24-70mm f/2.8 macro lens, does anyone have any experience with that?

 

I'm also glad to hear the Canon 24mm f/2.8 is good; the Sigma I have is or was very good all things considered, its AF performance was very lethargic but as a sharp wide angle with minimal flare it wasn't too bad, 16 years old this year... So that's one I can also bear in mind.

 

The 35mm focal length is possible as like that focal length and enjoy shooting a Olympus Trip 35 which has a Zuiko 40mm lens and that is very useful, so the 35mm f/2 might be a good idea as I admit sometimes I have found at <28mm you need to work at foreground interest as well as mid to background. May also be good for gig work with an f/2 focal length. Unfortunately as much as I love the 35mm f/1.4L -- it's out of reach too :( I have used that lens over a weekend with an EOS 5D a couple of years ago on a weekend rental and whilst the results were great, the lens is quite pricy (for my budget.)

 

I'd also be interested in seeing examples of the Sigma 15-30mm lens, I see it's not a HSM (USM?) variant but this isn't for wildlife shots so... If there are good (ie: unresized) shots for me to look at this would be a lens I'd be interested in.

 

In all, it would appear the 20-35mm isn't recommend as highly as other lenses. I'm not too woried about focal length on future APS-C upgrades, as that is unlikely since I enjoy shooting film - particularly as I like developing my own black and white films. But as you say, always good to keep half your eye on the ball in the future.

 

So from this I have the following lenses that seem to fit the bill:

 

- 17-40mm f4/L -- we all knew that anyway :)

 

- 24mm f/2.8

 

- 35mm f/2

 

- Sigma 15-30mm

 

My next investment was to be a 70-200mm f/4 but that will have to go on hold as the wide angle end is something that matters much more to me, but a decent modern wide angle prime or zoom was the next on the list.

 

I do have myself a lot to think about here!

 

Thanks once again

Vicky

<p>Hello,

 

<p>I've done a bit of searching around and on these forums before posing this

question as I appreciate that asking the same thing twice when the answer is

there just waiting to be searched for!

 

<p>My problem is that my old Sigma 24mm f/2.8 seems to have given up the ghost

with being unable to auto focus and the aperture blades being stopped right

down permanently. Also observing it when set to f/2.8 and firing the shutter

the aperture blades don't budge. I've opened it up and manually cranking the

cogs that open and close the blades works but as soon as I start shooting at a

smaller aperture the blades just get locked again. Sigma quote that repairing

the lens would be about ?60 or so. Of course the EOS 3 which this was used on

was not fully compatible with it so maybe this was the contributing factor, but

I don't think the drizzle on Sunday night helped...

 

<p>So, rather than spend ?60 on repairing it, I'm thinking of replacing the

lens entirely as it was quite old, I should look for something new(er) that

won't have problems with my EOS 3.

 

<p>I don't have a lot of money so in an ideal world I'd get a 17-40mm f4/L and

that would be it, but I'm someone who shoots every weekend and only now having

a 50mm f/1.8 II (great lens for the money) - not having a wide angle lens is

going to become frustrating very quick.

 

<p>I've narrowed down my options to Canon lenses as I'm not sure of the 3rd

party options:-

 

<ul>

<li>EF 24mm f/2.8</li>

 

<li>EF 28mm f/2.8</li>

 

<li>EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM</li>

 

<li>/perhaps/ EF 35mm f/2</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I'm particularly interested in about the 20-35mm in terms of sharpness. I'm

not bothered about wide apertures for low light as I find my 50mm is great for

gigs. I'm not expecting L series quality, but how does the 20-35mm perform at

(say f/8-11 on all focal lengths):

 

<ul><li>20mm</li>

<li>24mm</li>

<li>28mm</li>

<li>35mm</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I'm a bit wary of the 24 and 28mm EF lenses as I heard the quality wasn't

great as they are quite old lenses in terms of design and have heard different

things about them -- the 35mm seems to be quite good though. How is colour

reproduction in general on them?

 

<p>Generally a prime should be sharper than a wide-angle zoom lens but if

anyone has any real life experience of how these perform that would be great.

 

<p>Sorry if I sound like I'm going around in circles, I just want to get a lens

that will take good landscape shots with good colour reproduction and some

environmental portraiture.

 

<p>Also hows the build quality on the 20-35mm? Does anyone know of comparison

shots of the 17-40mm f/4L and the 20-35mm at the same focal lengths?

 

<p>Thanks in advance for everyone's time and thoughts,

 

<p>Vicky

The EOS 3 is actually older, 1998. Still a damn fine camera for 10 year old technology. Even older considering the development lead time.

 

To me, I really don't care that film is becoming a backwater. All that matters is that within 3/4 mile of my front door I have someone who sells all the photographic gear and film that I need, and I can get it all easily developed if I don't fancy doing it myself (I rarely do any C41/E6 processing, mostly only do black and white.) For me, nothing is more wonderful than getting back a set of 36 perfectly exposed Velvia 50 slides and thinking "Hummm now that was a nice day!" Even better still, running a slideshow with family and friends on the lounge wall of travels here and there :)

 

Of course you can do all of this with digital but I just find my soul and passion comes through with film whereas digital for me leaves me slightly detached. That's a personal thing, not a broad sweeping statement that I am trying to present as a fact that applies to everybody -- it doesn't. (I say these disclaimers as I have had many people who use purely DSLRs or digital launch a tirade on me thinking I am personally trying to upset them, hurt them or take their cameras away from them because of my personal opinions. Just to make this clear -- I think digital has done some truly wonderful things!)

 

Of course I do use digital cameras, just as a point and shoot for those things I have to have done quickly (usually work related.)

I'll also give the heads up on the EOS 3. You can find very good condition examples for very little money comparatively. I bought an EOS 3 that was virtually mint (no marks on the body, just minor hot shoe scuffs.)

 

It's a fabulous camera and one that I enjoy immensely. It's probably a bit overkill in most respects for my needs (I was also an EOS 5/A2(E) user) but the enhanced weather-proofing makes it worthwhile.

 

On the odd occassion I see brand new EOS 3's but they are becoming far and few between.

 

I am of the same opinion on this as Gary. There is a market for film cameras (including 35mm SLRs) but compared to the digital market - it is very small. It's just as well that cameras such as the EOS 30v/Elan 7, 3 and 1v are excellent fully capable cameras.

 

I got my EOS 3 for ?150 from a local dealer, no box but everything else as it should be. That's just under $300 USD at current rates. It was worth every penny.

 

Talking of which, the great outdoors is calling...but before I go off walking I need to change a punctured tyre on my car... Umph!

 

Vicky

Colin,

 

Maybe I should have clarified, when I said thousands, I meant ?2500+. In essence if Canon had a say ?1800 price point EOS DSLR wich whilst it didn't have the largest LCD display, nor face detection and other such gizmos but focussed on weather sealing, rugged build quality (though not up to the 1 series, a bit like an EOS 3 vs. an EOS 1v/1D series) I think there could be a market for that. Of course I could be wrong!

 

Anyway, it's not an either/or situation, it's an 'and' situation. A ruggedized semi-pro body could sit alongside an all singing all dancing latest tech wonder semi-pro body, with the advanced-amateur and amateur offerings sitting beneath as they do at the moment. Like I say though, those who have been willing thus far to spend ?2,500+ on the 1D series will of course continue to do so.

 

So I wouldn't want to give the impression that Canon should do the impossible and release a ruggedized 5D (or replacement) for ?400--that won't happen.

Jim,

 

I think I see where you are coming from on this one. Like any technology that is maturing, it's going to take a while for the electronics that go into a camera these days (which is a very sophisticated computer in many ways these days) to be hardened to an extent that they have a very low failure rate. Eventually though everything gets there.

 

Aside from the fact I haven't switched to digital (nor plan to, I shoot a lot of black and white and develop myself a lot...) as I use an EOS 3 -- which to me is pretty much a perfect camera. Very sophisticated (when am I ever going to need 45 AF points to choose from...I haven't yet!) but the beauty of it for me is its fairly good weather-proofing and rugged build. This is something I value highly.

 

I think part of this stems from my work in the IT industry (web development) where failure on a computer hardware level is a bit more common than I like and has slowly driven me up the wall and made me a bit conservative with anything I buy as I like things to last, even if they aren't the latest and greatest. (Points out 7 year old Dell PC and 5 year old IBM laptop she owns) As such I still have a CRT television because the picture is sharp and it's still going, I own two ageing but fine computers that seem to have bedded in for the long haul, the cameras are rugged, and I drive an old Ford Escort (1988) which is a shocker to look at -- no style -- but the thing just keeps on going and going and going. I think I have been bitten a bit too much by technology failing on me so I'm a bit shy of being close to the bleeding edge; but there you go.

 

What I would be interested in seeing is a more rugged DSLR and weather-proofed that doesn't reach into thousands of pounds. (Mind you I would be hard pressed to budge from my 3, and I have spent a fair bit of time with a 5D which is a gorgeous camera, just doesn't have that /something/ about it for me.)

 

Hopefully more weather sealing will filter down to the pro-sumer/advanced amateur level models such as the 5D's replacement. After all the EOS 5 (A2/E) wasn't weather sealed but its replacement the 3 was to a fair degree so it could be possible this will feature in the 5D's replacement.

 

Perhaps this will be another 'gap' that Canon could fill. An 'entry level' full frame sensor DSLR in the ilk of the 5D and one that is the same but ruggedized but not in the price range of the 1D Mk III.

 

That said, if professional/serious amateurs have obliged to paying Canon for this rugged design in the form of the 1D series quite happily, why would Canon want to change that by undercutting their sales.

 

Anyway none of this should detract that Canon's present DSLR line-up is fabulous. I have had the pleasure of using all of them with the exception of the new 1D Mk III (and 1Ds Mk III) and the 400D (Rebel XTi). But I still love my EOS 3. :)

 

Re: the slow auto focus on the EOS 3 vs. the 40D. I've not noticed this myself but AF is slightly slower on the 3 with all 45 AF points enabled. Setting the CF to limit the AF points to 11 does speed up AF noticeably with suitable USM lenses. (i.e. my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 is a dog regardless at auto focussing!)

 

Vicky

It depends what you want to take photos of and how you see things when you're out walking but I find a couple of prime lenses is my trusted photography hiking apparel, for this I use a 24mm f/2.8 for pure landscapes and a 50mm f/1.8 II for people with the landscape and 'cropped' landscape shots. I don't take wildlife shots or super close ups that would necessitate a macro lens. For the most part anything that I take close up is fulfilled by the 50mm at f/2 - f/2.5 or so.

 

I'm using a Canon EOS 3 35mm SLR so it's full frame compared to the 1.6x APS-C sized sensor on the 400D. As such you would need to look at perhaps something like the 20mm prime to get an equivalent 26mm field of view which is still a good wide angle, and perhaps the excellent 35mm f/2 (don't own one but used one for a few weeks and loved it) which would give you an equivalent 56mm field of view. I find this kind of field of view perfect for what I like doing (although I will eventually get a 17-40 f4/L)

 

The good thing about the prime lenses is that pound for pound you get better IQ (especially at the budget end) than you would on a zoom lens, and you have the added creativity of a narrow depth of field on the primes I have mentioned.

 

The EOS 3 isn't a brick but it's a good amount heavier than a 400D but I don't find it tiresome with the primes. A zoom lens such as even a 70-200 f/4L might be a different matter, especially if I added the vertical grip and then my neck would be aching pretty quickly!

 

I also carry a polarising filter (a good Hama or Hoya filter doesn't have to be expensive particularly as both of my primes are 52mm) and a red filter too as I do a lot of black and white photography. Finally I carry a fairly lightweight tripod (only a Jessops one, nothing fancy) that is light, and durable with a quick release mechanism which is a must I find.

 

I find this doesn't weigh me down at all as the 24mm and 50mm lenses are light and the EOS 3 is waterproofed to an extent so light drizzle, dusty conditions etc. it can withstand but I'll admit when the elements get rough, I put it in my backpack in a water resistant compartment; that said it must be luck but I've never been caught out in torrential rain when hiking with the EOS 3 and 5QD I had before it.

 

Everyone is of course different but I prefer prime lenses for this kind of work, and IQ will be very good as I say compared to the cheaper zoom lenses.

 

Good luck and most of all enjoy it, hiking and photography to me go hand in hand!

 

Vicky

And to add they arrived today, which is excellent. Can't get quicker than that!

Ok as promised I would feedback if I found a supplier. Thankfully my usual place for these, H Lehmanns in Stoke-on-Trent, England have them. They are a Canon Authorised Repair Centre. They do everything including spares and repairs.

 

There website is here: http://www.lehmannsdirect.co.uk/

And you can call them on the telephone on: 01782 413 611

 

I was able to just ask for the Canon EOS 3 winder clutch/coupler cover, they sell them in pairs (handy!) and including delivery it's ?7.50.

 

Not cheap for what are two plastic discs but cheaper than finding a PB-E2 to 'cover' the hole or moisture getting in and screwing the camera, which could of course be very costly.

 

Delivery is 1-2 days and they take all major credit and debit cards over the phone.

 

They're very good as I used them in the past for an EOS 5 control dial fix which they did for ?40 including pick up and return of the camera. (Quite a good price you'll agree.)

 

Hope this helps others and thank you everyone for your help,

 

Vicky

Hello everybody,

 

Many many thanks for your help and advice. I shall contact a Canon Authorised repair centre with this part number and failing that contact Canon themselves. Thanks for also informing that the 1v part wouldn't fit. I should have known that the 1v wouldn't have had the same plastic cap!

 

I have no idea how it came loose, I just noticed it about five miles into my walk when I actually needed my tripod, I went to fix the release mechanism to the bottom of the camera and it was gone. I was miffed to say the least!

 

I'll let you know how I get on. I'm in the UK so this may have some bearing on the outcome!

 

Once again a huge thank you, I'm truly indebted!

 

Vicky

Hello,

 

Does anyone know where I could find a replacement winder cap (the one you take

off to attach a power booster such as the PB-E2) could be found? I've tried

looking via Google to no avail and I'm not holding out much hope I'll ever find one.

 

It appears at some point on my 7 mile walk on the South Downs today this cap has

somehow come off and now I have a gaping hole at the bottom of the EOS 3. This

is irking me somewhat.

 

One solution is to get a PB-E2 to 'cover' the 'hole' but that's an expensive and

heavy solution!

 

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated,

 

Thanks,

 

Vicky

Tony -- I have not got the PB-E2 but I have been in the same mind as after a few hours I definitely feel the EOS 3 around my neck but it's far from unbearable (that said I usually walk around with a 50mm f/1.8 II on it so that is super lightweight) but I think even though the PB-E2 would make vertical shooting easier, I think it might be a bit too much weight to carry for an extended period.

 

I've found the overall feel and fit of the EOS 3 is much better than the 5, I've not got particularly big hands but I can pretty much say it's very comfortable.

 

I was fortunate that the one I picked up had not a mark on it except for the usual hotshoe marks but apart from that, I can only assume it was bought as a backup body and never used much for that role.

 

Certainly the EOS 3 has continually impressed me. A few nights ago I was attempting to take some shots in low light with no flash with said 50mm lens and Ilford Delta 3200 (I like shooting black and white mostly) and it did hunt a fair bit but I think that's more to do with the poor AF system on the 50mm lens than the EOS 3's 'fault'. (I try not to use a flash if I can, not that I own one any more, my 430EZ was sold over a year ago and that would have only been A-TTL on the 3 anyway)

Since the Elan 7e (EOS 30) is of the same 'era' almost as my EOS 3, I have a Sigma 24mm prime which will on occasion lock when trying to fire the shutter. It doesn't always happen but it's something to bear in mind when purchasing an older Sigma lens for your Elan/30.

I only got my EOS 3 about a month ago when my EOS 5 (A2E) died over Christmas. I am enjoying it ever so much and shan't be giving it for a very long time. Just about to send off my first roll of Velvia (50) for processing and will be very eager to see the results.

 

So far though I have no desire to go to digital and the EOS 3 has been a real boost to my photography and the moments I want to capture.

 

Of course the second hand value is great for someone like me, ?150 from my local camera shop bought a virtually mint EOS 3. I hope it's with me for a very long time.

John Clark -- very interesting indeed. I too was very fortunate to pick up a virtually mint (except for minor hot shoe 'scuffs') EOS 3 for ?150 from a local shop. There is not a mark on it (and that's after I started using it!) and I couldn't have been more pleased with it so far.

 

I haven't particularly found a bad example of the EOS 3's evaluative metering yet but I'm sure I'll get one or two frames with my current roll that I am disappointed with as I have pushed it quite hard this week with a diverse range of shots in varying levels of light, back lighting etc. That said I was unaware of the Contax G2 Rangefinder, looks a very nice camera to own!

Harry -- it does make a lot of difference. Sadly two years ago I was still with my EOS 5! Although there was little to be sad about with the 5!

 

I had a laugh a couple of weeks ago in Bristol (England) when I turned up at the Clifton Suspension Bridge to try out night bulb exposures on my way back home. It was about 9.30pm and it was dead quiet and the whole bridge was illuminated. It was raining in bursts and the wind was howling and it occurred to me, "Great, finally a waterproofed camera. However, I now realise this is to no avail as I'm still not waterproofed!"

 

It was good fun though!

Thomas -- I have never played with an EOS 20D but I have some mild dabblings with an EOS 10D, and much more extensive time with an EOS 30D and a 5D. The 30D and 5D didn't seem to have as much of a mirror 'slap' as the 3 has either, in fact compared to my EOS 5 (35mm) the 3 is positively a shouty mirror slap in comparison.

 

That said this loud slap the 3 exudes does not affect my photography but I have been amused by Canon's work to make 'silent' lenses and then producing with the EOS 3 (and others) quite a noisy little thing!

Delayed on the replies to this thread due to a couple of very hectic days at work!

 

Robin -- I am definitely enjoing the more sensitive shutter release on the EOS 3 personally. A couple of 'mimicking' the motions with my now dead EOS 5/A2(E) and its shutter release has made me realise how much I prefer the sensitivity of the EOS 3's shutter.

 

Certainly as you point out whether the EOS 3 is in fact an EOS 1 series or not is semantics. I'm not inclined to decide one way or another on this because I am finding what matters is this is an absolutely staggeringly enjoyable camera to work with. My work seems to flow a lot better with it than with the EOS 5, and that was also a pleasure to work with.

 

I have yet to test slide film in my example to test for exposure issues but I have yet to find any concerns with print film (not that I would expect this to yield a conclusion to a 2/3rd stop under-exposure if it was present on my EOS 3) but so far so good. The results I have gotten from it have been enjoyable to say the least. Especially when my lens range is limited (presently just a 50mm f/1.8 II and a 24mm f/2.8 -- but I work well with them, looking to get the 35mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.8 'soon') the EOS 3 has been a pleasure to work with.

 

I would like to get the PB-E2 for it, although I'm not sure my neck will be very happy to learn this!

 

Certainly my EOS 3 does not have CF-19 (which was Firmware v1.7 I think you mention?)

<p>Wow a lot of replies here. I'll try to refer to every remark in this reply. (Sorry it's long!)</p>

 

<p>I have put a few examples from this camera in my gallery here on Photo.net and I also, can I mention this, have a Flickr page... :) (It's here <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/</a>)

There are a few bits there but I only recently acquired a 35mm scanner so I am a bit slow to get them on-line at times! Also some of them were taken with my EOS 5.</p>

 

<p>So in turn:</p>

 

<p>Charles -- I too use a heck of a lot of black and white film (usually Ilford Delta 100, 3200 or XP2) as it is a key passion of mine. Eventually I want to look into developing my own negatives but that's a matter of time and money. That said I do shoot in colour too, I'm just hanging on for the first day of spring where I can burst outside with some Velvia (50)!</p>

 

<p>Doug -- As noted the sensitive shutter I noted right away but I have kind of gotten used to it and I think I even prefer it. Certainly the whole feel of the EOS 3 to the 5 is much more comfortable for my hands and the shutter release is part of this for me.</p>

 

<p>Puppy Face -- I love the ECF as well but I haven't calibrated it nearly enough yet so it's still a bit hit and miss. That said I have for the time being reduced the AF points from 45 to 11 and this has sped up AF and ECF no end. Incidentally your review was incredibly important to me in choosing the EOS 3 over the 1n!</p>

 

<p>JDM -- More that welcome to lament lyrically about cameras I'm sure :) Passion is good! The EOS 5/A2E was a great camera and you can imagine I was gutted when it died. If it hadn't have done I'd still be using it now. I'm not sure what happened but it was pretty beat! The EOS 3 is a very nice camera and I bought mine from a local shop for a very reasonable ?150 (it is virtually mint/unused looking bar the usual hot shoe scuffs.)</p>

 

<p>Andy -- You'd be surprised how many people sit on two sides of the fence; some understand that using film is a choice and don't really see the 'problem' whereas some people are very critical of using film and because they shoot digital now they don't understand it. I probably don't in truth either but their is just something about film... If you look in my profile gallery there are a few snaps but I also have a Flickr page (see above.)</p>

 

<p>So far I have been very encouraged by the EOS 3's results so much so that I have lined up two projects to complement a book I am writing one which is taking unusual photos of where I live (Worthing on the South Coast of England) and the second a trip around London's North Circular trying to find out as much as possible about the people who live in its proximity -- but the latter is a massive project that I'll likely still be working on in five years!</p>

 

<p>Paulo -- Indeed compared to the EOS 5 the mirror/shutter mechanism is a lot louder, I noticed it right away. I'm glad I don't really do any wildlife photography! I have handled the 1v and it is a *beast* of a camera, very nice but my wrists would ache too quickly with its heft. Even the EOS 3 becomes a little wearisome after 4 hours walking around with my backpack and tripod :) I'm also inclined to say that I prefer the EOS 3's sensitive shutter but I am being quite slow and pragmatic in my final judgements. </p>

 

<p>Whew :)</p>