sean_hester

the original elan DOES have the rear control dial. in fact i think

it's the exact same piece of plastic that is used on the A2. (both

cameras came out near the same time) that's why i said it was the

closest to the A2 in terms of ergonomics.

<p>

i have no problem switching between the two for shooting. except for

a couple of little things (setting film ISO, setting the self timer)

that aren't in play for "quick shooting" they are identical. when i

was thinking of getting an elan-II for a backup the fact that the

elan-II and the A2 were VERY different put me off of the elan-II.

if you have to have a new camera then i'd get the elan II.

<p>

if you don't mind the idea of a used camera, you can probably get

another A2 for the price of a new elan II.

<p>

another possibility if you don't mind used is the original elan. that

would be the cheapest option of all and it's a good camera. i use

that as my backup ESPECIALLY because it has a couple of features that

none of the other cameras have. it's pluses are.

<p>

1. it's the quietest EOS camera.

<p>

2. it's controls are more like the A2 of any other EOS. (MUCH closer

then the elan II is to the A2)

<p>

3. it has a handy IR remote that's more handy then a cable release.

especially for taking pictures with you in them)

<p>

4. it has a smaller spot meter then the elan II (but not as small as

the A2)

<p>

it's drawback are.

<p>

1. it's used (if that's a drawback to you, it's not to me)

<p>

2. it doesn't have CF-4

<p>

3. it only has one AF spot (3 for the elan II and 7 for the rebel)

<p>

hope this helps.

stanley, i can't believe you actually think cameras should be compared

basen on product lineup rather then price/featuers. the 1n and the

f100 are pretty similar in price and features. why would you copmpare

either to the the double the price F5? just because the F5 is the

most expensive nikon and the 1n is the most expensive canon?

<p>

that means if i'm car shopping i can't compare the nissam maxima

(pretty much the most expensive nissan 4 door sedan) to the lexus

gs300 (a car pretty similar in size/price/features to the maxima) or

the BMW 323i (similar again) because those are the lower end lexus and

BMW. obviously i need to comapre the maxima to the LS400 and 750i

since then i'd be comapraing everone's most expensive entry. (even

though the LS400 and 750i cost 2-3 TIMES as much as a maxima) i think

not.

about "This is what happened: I asked a question on photo.net. The

question was not place on the "new questions" board, but was put on

the "Older questions" board under a category. I wanted it on the new

board, so I wrote it again changing the category."

<p>

here's some technical tips. it's all one "board". (as much as

phillip probably wouldn't want it called that) the "new questions"

are just ones that haven't been catagorized yet. apparently your

question was easy to catagorize so it was (probably by you). i guess

for people too lazy or shortsighted to scroll down a page or two, the

"new questions" are all they see, so being catagorized is a bad thing,

but for the rest of us, catagorization is a good thing. that way i

can ignore all the equipment quesitons if i want to. "new" or

otherwise.

<p>

since it's all one area (i can't call it a board anymore, it's too

painful) posting it two times is only going to make things worse.

<p>

all questions that get answered appear in the "new answers" filter.

use it. instead of re-posting the question again and again to put it

at the top of the list.

<p>

----------

<p>

about "Does anyone have any advice regarding how to communicate within

photo.net without being the target of ridicule?"

<p>

sure! all you have to do is ask questions that follows the (admitedly

strict) topic rules. i'vve done it half a dozen times. you

apparently asked an off topic question (probably about equipment) and

those aren't allowed. then you come here (where equipment questions

ARE allowed) and ask ANOTHER OFF TOPIC QUESTION. it is true that the

moderation is less active here, so you're off topic questions last

longer, but you still have yet to post an ON TOPIC question. maybe

you should post your original question to photo.net here??? it would

at least be on topic.

<p>

what's so hard to understand about off-topic? if you're talking

about "bears" in your 4th grade class today and one of your 4th

graders asks a question about the politics of the late 18th century

are you going to discuss it? i doubt it. it's not a 4th grade

topic., and it's definately not about today's topic of "bears". you

might guide him to some other sources of information (which is what

photo.net sometimes does) but you probably won't take class time to

discuss it. what if he askes it again? and again? and again? (it

is a valid and compelling question afterall) then asks why you refuse

to answer his question? then argues with your answer about why you

don't answer his question? then goes next door to some other

unsuspecting classroom and whines to them about how his teacher won't

answer his question? you'll eventually have had enough of it.

<p>

if the people at photo.net won't answer your question, ask it

somewhere else.

<p>

photo.net is much more like college level schooling, rather then

grade/public schooling. each class has a very strictly defined topic

and a very smart, very busy, very impatient teacher trying to teach

it. they'd probably much rather be doing whatever activity they're

teaching, but they're taking time out of their day to teach you. at

least you could stick to the topic they came to discuss. there's no

time for off-topic discussions. it makes so mcuh sense to me.

<p>

--------

<p>

P.S. "spam" is unwanted e-mail. "spamming" is the repeated sending

of "spam". apparently phillip figured (sarcastically) that since you

sent the same (unwanted) message two times you were "spamming"

photo.net.

"However, in Practical Photographer's review of the 9 the reviewer

commented that the 9 was almost as good at exposure as the EOS-3

(which the same reviewer had given a perfect score to), and it was the

F100 that had the serious problem. Maybe there ought to be some

consistant standards for judging exposures in reviews"

<p>

first let me say i haven't read any of these reviews, so i'm taking it

on face value that what people are saying here is true. as far as i

can tell the eos-3 metering did pretty poorly on two big tests and

scored perfect (beating the other two) on one test. what do you make

of that? do you go with the majority? do you take an average?

<p>

it's things like this that make me pretty much ignore the subjective

reviews of camera bodies. (or lenses, or flashes, or stereos, or

almost anything) lack of standards, wildly different results from

test to test (even in the same publication), and the fact that the

reviews are written based on not losing advertising, all make them

pretty much worthless in my opinion.

<p>

i read the reviews to get easier to read feature lists then you can

get from the marketing literature (nikon doesn't put "NO mirror

lockup" in it's feature list for the f100 so i might miss that if i

didn't read a review where the reviewer was likely to point it out)

but as far as "this is better, that is better" i ignore it. if i want

to do a comparison i will, but i usually don't.

<p>

i find it hard to believe that canon or nikon or ANYONE would release

a camera to market an 1999 that was designed so poorly that it

couldn't meter correctly. call me trusting (or naive) but i figure

that the products will function. all i look for in reviews is what

functions the equipment is supposed to do.

<p>

so... as far as the eos-3, 9, and f100 go... apparently depending on

how lucky you are the camera you get might be perfect or it might be

very bad. (i bought an eos-5 that had the shutter fail on the

VERY FIRST time i tripped it, so luck plays a pretty big part) that

leaves me with this conclusion.

<p>

"get whichever camera you like. they're all good. (better then any

i own) if it performs poorly send it back for another copy or to get

it fixed."

um... the flash meter and the ambient light meter are completly

different systems. at least they are on my eos-5. it uses

completly different sensors, and i assume a different algorithm for

figuring out the exposure. it seems pretty easy for one system to be

calibrated differently then the other.

<p>

i do agree that it's bad business for canon to make consumers test

their stuff. but i still think that by the time i want to buy an

eos-3 (early next year?) all the "bugs" will be worked out.

t c. i didn't mean to imply that the user should deal with that

problem. i meant that canon should fix it, and if you got one of the

ones that is underexposing then canon should fix yours (or better yet

send you a new one in exchange)

<p>

magnus. i don't read magazine reviews of camera equipment because

they are largely worthless, so i wasn't aware of this being a

consistant problem, not just a sample variation. but if it IS a

consistant problem with all of the cameras, then that makes me feel

EVEN BETTER about buying one in a year or so. it's obviously

something canon will change (or "fix" if you like that word better)

and then they'll all be consistantly correct. if it were only a few

samples that were wrong, i'd be forever worried that i'd end up with

one of the "bad" ones. but since they are all "bad", soon they'll all

be fixed.

<p>

----------

<p>

it's sad to admit, but it seems that initial testing of almost all

products (cameras, computer software, etc.) these days sucks. they

give them to us (consumers) to test, then they fix the problems we

find. but... be that as it may, the products will eventually work,

we just have to wait a year. oh well...

sorry, but i don't remember exactly. i'm pretty sure it had the same

two buttons on the back (which i figured meant flash off, and red eye,

and the like, but i'm not cretain)

<p>

there's nothing wrong with doing feature hunting/comparing at the

store, however. that is one of the few things left a store can offer

you over buying off the web. ;-) i usually go so far as to make them

let me look at the manual, because the salespeople usually have no

idea what the features are.

i just went through the same thing with my mom. she said she "needed"

a zoom. i looked at all three you mention and the one thing i noticed

is that only the 70 is still small. the others are quite a bit

bigger. that reason alone would make me want the 70. (a longer,

slower zoom isn't that useful anyway)

<p>

they didn't have the 70 at the store and she needed a camera that day,

so i loaned her one of my epics (fixed lens) for the week, until she

could get the zoom one. after the week she decided that she liked the

fixed lens better anyway.

<p>

i'd vote for the fixed lens first, then the 70.

i was told by one store (i didn't cross check) that the "limited

edition" was bronze only. i didn't want the date back anyway and got

the black original instead.

the A2 "spot" is in fact a rectangle. all it is, really, is the

center section of the matrix meter. (which is a bunch of rectangles,

not several wierd shapes like most matrix meters) i'd call it a small

partial too. you can link it to the focus cells though, and then you

get the rectangle that is at that portion of the frame.

<p>

on the 1n you get the center matrix cell (called wide spot) and a

seperate real spot meter (called narrow spot)

i wonder how long canon will be crying because the EOS-3 that was

tested first had a calibration error and was in need of repair. that

initial test seems to have persuaded many people (at least many people

here) to believe that the eos-3 is worthless. of course that's a

silly conclusion to reach, but people will reach it nonetheless. and

they'll tell people who will tell people who will tell people who will

tell people who will tell people, etc... pretty soon a single broken

camera means the EOS-3 is "an overdesigned FLAWED product." and "{You}

can go very wrong with the EOS 3. Pro it ain't. A triumph it ain't."

<p>

of course if that camera so consistantly underexposes, it's pretty

common logic to conclude that it needs to be adjusted, and then will

then consistantly expose correctly. if it was right sometimes, over

sometimes, under sometimes i'd be a little worried, but since everyone

is adamant that it CONSISTANTLY underexposed, then i'm not worried.

adjust it and it'll CONSISTANTLY be right. a simple fix.

<p>

the funny thing is that this may have a silver lining for canon.

eventually the EOS-3 will be one of those cameras that "had a few bugs

when initially released, that were eventually worked out" then more

and more people will buy them. but until then canon will be able to

keep the price high, and the people smart enough to realize it's a

good camera and just can't wait to have one will have to pay the

higher price. i'll wait for the dust to settle and the price to come

down though. just like i will for the minolta 9.

oh. i think i DID assume wrong. sorry...

<p>

i guess the high eyepoint viewfinder thing makes sense, sort of...

but doesn't the 1n have a 100% finder and the f100 have something less

(97% maybe?) but i guess if you can't see around the whole 100% it

won't do you any good. i'm lucky to not have to wear glasses, yet, so

i'm not used to comparing cameras based on that issue.

about "Anyway, they (the Nikons!) all gave me far better control over

the final image frames) than any of the Canons I have ever tried"

<p>

what does that mean? what feature or control gives you that control?

or are you just describing that you like the nikon interface better?

because with cameras that expensive, i can't imagine one having less

control then the other. maybe better AF, or easier to use options,

or something minor, but missing options that affect control? i'd love

to hear which one(s).

the 75-300 is a nice lens. the IS really help those of us too lazy to

carry tripods all the time. it'll fit well with your other two

lenses.

<p>

everyone wants to get LONG LONG lenses for airshows. i don't agree.

if you get a 170-500 so you can get really close up on that plane,

you'll get a big blurry plane. partly because 500mm zooms have bad

optics and partly because it's IMPOSSIBLE to handhold a 500mm lens

steady enough. 90% of my good air show shots are in the 200mm-300mm

range. with a 1/1000 sec shutter speed (and good steady panning

technique) i can get a pretty sharp shot at 300mm. but NOT at 500mm.

that's tripod territory for sure. if you want a frame filling plane,

shoot it at 200 and enlarge/crop it. it'll be better then a 500mm

zoom.

<p>

i think the 75-300 is a good airshow lens. IS might help but the

75-300 doesn't have the panning IS mode. you may be able to use it by

holding the camera still and waiting for the planes to fly into your

viewfinder (not as hard as it sounds) but panning with IS won't work.

you could get the 300 f4 IS. that's my favorite airshow lens. it has

the panning IS mode and it works great. it's pretty pricy though...

if you really don't have time to change lenses then i think you

only a couple of options.

<p>

1. get a 50 f1.8, (~$100) or 50 f1.4 (~$300). for the single person

shots (where the 50 might not be close enough) you can always get the

shots cropped. (enlarged to 5x7, then cut the edges off to get 4x6

which simulates the longer focal length)

<p>

2. get one of the f2.8 zooms (35-70 or 80-200) depending on which

range you will use more. if you're pretty close, the 35-70 will be

better for group shots and full body shots of a single person, while

the 80-200 would be better for single people and face shots. if

you're pretty far away get the 80-200. the bummers about these zooms

is they are expensive and HEAVY. i'm too lazy to carry then around

all day.

<p>

3. (this is what i do) get another camera body. put a 50 f1.8 on one

and an 85 f1.8 on the other. this way you can switch relatively

quickly. having a 2nd body also helps if you want different film in

the cameras (black and white in one for instance)

<p>

it all depends on how much money you want to spend on this.

<p>

P.S. just make sure to use fuji NHGII film. it's worth the extra

couple of dollars a roll.

i'm not un-relaxed. but i am still curious. where are the bad

places? is germany bad? is the US bad? is russia bad? where is

bad?

for available light, i consider f2.8 medium to slow. you really need

f2 or faster. anything slower then f2.8 is worthless.

<p>

i use fuji nhgII 800 and 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8, and 135 f2 lenses.

if you NEED a zoom you'll have to get one of the constant aperture

f2.8 ones and they usually cost over $1000 each.

<p>

but... you don't NEED a zoom. photography doesn't need to be like

video or movie cameras. you don't need to point your camera at your

daughter for the whole recital and follow her around and zoom in and

out to keep her framed. what i do is put the 85 on and take some

shots. (if the subject moves too close or too far away, i wait for

her to come back in frame) then i put on the 50 and take some shots

there, then the 135 then the 28, etc. sure... a zoom would be more

convient, but noone makes an f1.8 zoom.

i wonder why you ask? are there "bad" places for lenses to be made?

i want to make sure not to buy any lenses made in those places. (the

last sentence was sarcasm, by the way)

first off... are the negatives (or slides (but we need to know which)

clear or black?

<p>

there's no "resetting" that would fix this problem. the only two

things the camera could do that will cause "nothing" on film is some

sort of malfunction, or being in manual mode with the shutter set

really high and the aperture set really small. where is your main

control dial set? (P, AV, M, green box, running guy, flower, etc.)?

<p>

it's also possible that the people who developed your film could have

messed it up.

the canon 1.4x tc won't work on the 28-70L. (it will on the 70-200L)

so you'd have to get a 3rd party tc. (yuch) and adding a tc will

also put you slower then f2.8.

<p>

the way pro sports photographers handle this is with a 2nd body. (1

lens on each) if you can afford the 28-70L and the 70-200L you should

be able to get a 2nd body. having a 2nd body is good in case one has

trouble too. it doesn't have to be the same body you use for your

"regular" body. a cheaper (lighter) one is usually a good way to go.

i use an old elan as a backup for my eos-5. it's really handy for:

<p>

1. having two lenses mounted at the same time.

2. having two different films loaded.

3. having a cheap, light body for taking to places where i'm afraid

to take my "expensive" camera.

4. as a backup.

<p>

think about it...

the 70-200 is one of the faster focusing lenses on the planet. it's

hard to use that a banchmark because not many lenses live up.

<p>

28-70 is about the biggest range you can go with a 2.8 lens and still

have good quality. 3 to 1 is the rule of thumb. so if you wanted a

135 2.8 lens the wide wnd would have to be about 50. 28-105 (4 to

1) and 28-135 (5 to 1) are just too much range. that's the same

reason why the 70-200 is only 70-200 instead of 70-300 like the

smaller aperture lenses are.

<p>

if you NEED f2.8 you'll have to get the 28-70.

<p>

P.S. canon makes the 28-135 IS lens. the IS will help you with

handholding, but not as much with fast moving sports. it may interest

you.

people seem to talk about photodo.com alot for that kind of searching.

<p>

here's my advice. if you're reasonably concerned about optical

quality and mechanical quality get the EF 20-35 3.4-4.5. if you're

really anal about optics get a prime (20, 24, 28, or 35 whichever you

want). if you're both anal AND rich get the EF 17-35 f2.8L.

at first i thought the same thing mark did. but doesn't kodak make

those cameras? i thought they took the bodies and modified them (with

canon's and nikon's ok (and help) i'm sure)

<p>

this one is actually made by nikon right?

<p>

not that i think it really matters who makes the camera (kodak or

nikon) but that may be what stan's cheering about?