tony_cheh

I owned an F5 for almost two years, an F100 for two months and an

EOS3 for two days. I now own the Maxxum (Dynax) 9 and I like it the

best of the four. The EOS 3 is annoyingly LOUD (the shutter and

mirror "clack" and the motor has an obtrusive high-pitched whine). I

simply could not adjust to the noise (which is slightly worse than

the already loud EOS 1n). The EOS 3 also feels rather "plasticky" and

larger than the F100 and Maxxum 9 (although the EOS handgrip is very

well contoured). For me, the ECF simply would not work consistently,

despite repeated efforts at calibration and cumulative calibration.

Apparently my eyeglasses are detrimental to the ECF's function and

decrease my ability to place my eye in exactly the same place each

time behind the eyepiece, as required. Also, my EOS 3 (purchased a

few weeks ago with a date code indicating April 99 manufacture)

consistently underexposed by about 1/2 stop. This problem, reported

by many of the European magazines and EOS 3 users, apparently has not

been completely rectified. I really wanted to like the Canon because

I love the 28-135 IS lens, but I simply could not live with how loud

and annoying it sounded. I could tolerate manual control of a

diminished number of focusing points (11) and I could live with the

need to send the EOS 3 in for adjustment of the exposure problem. I

could even live with the less than solid feel. The F100 is truly

excellent; it is reasonably solid (but NOT as solid as an F5 or the

Maxxum 9), and very compact and quiet. Nikon's five focusing point

sytem and joypad selector are extremely quick, well designed and easy

to use. Nikon's three cross-sensors are usable to 5.6, unlike

Canon's. In my experience, Nikon's 3-D matrix metering is the best

in the business, with little or no difference between the F100 and

the F5, notwithstanding the latter's RGB sensor. Unfortunately,

Nikon's 50 mm lenses are flimsy and their rendition of out-of-focus

backgrounds ("bokeh") is hard and angular (sunlight on tree leaves is

particuarly annoying). As a group, Nikkors are often poor or

mediocre in this regard (the 135 DC is a notable exception), although

they usually excell in brilliance and color rendition. The Maxxum 9

feels like a little tank (much like the larger and heavier F5) and I

find the controls to be particularly smooth, intuitive and quick.

All in all, the "feel" of the Maxxum 9 (a combination of superb

ergonomics, solidity, density, and smooth operating feel) is the best

or tied for the best I have experienced in a 35mm SLR. To my hands,

only the Leica M3, M2 and (most) M4's are better. The Maxxum also

has the best viewfinder of all four of the cameras and, indeed, the

best I have seen on ANY 35mm SLR. It is extremely bright, contrasty

and large, and eye-relief is superb (the EOS 3 is the worst for

eyeglass wearers). I also really like the NEW 50mm 1.4 Minolta lens;

it's very compact and solid (I think the barrel is made of metal)

with an excellent bayonet lens hood. It is somewhat soft at 1.4 but

turns very good at 2 and is first-rate from 2.8 on. Of great

importance to me is the extremely smooth and natural bokeh of this

lens - in contrast to the Nikkors - Minolta even made the aperture

blades more curved to further improve this quality. In general, as a

group Minolta lenses have some of the best bokeh in the business. I

consider the Maxxum 9 to be a superb, beautifully constructed, highly

evolved camera, while the EOS 3 is a work in progress where, to a

certain extent, technological prowess took precedence over real world

reliability and practicality. The F100 is an excellent camera and a

very close second to the 9, with the Nikon's slightly a less solid

construction and the bokeh problem giving the advantage to the

Minolta. The F5 is superb but it is too HEAVY and too BIG to be

enjoyable to use. Now if only Minolta had an AF sensor configuration

and control like Nikon's and a 28-135 IS lens that was sharper at the

long end than Canon's :)

 

<p>

 

Tony Cheh

I bought the new Pentax 645N a couple of days ago. Great Camera! The controls and viewfinder loupe are greatly improved over the 645; the former consist of clearly marked dials and slide switches and the latter doesn't require as precise centering of your eye to see the whole viewfinder frame. Handling and balance are excellent and the autofocus is reasonably fast and quite effective for field shooting (particularly street shooting), but not as fast as a current generation 35mm SLR. Mirror dampening is superb, like the earlier 645, and handheld shots at slow speeds are easy. I am not the steadiest shooter, but can reliably handhold the 645N with the 75mm lens at 1/45 sec. The viewfinder is sharp, bright and contrasty and operational noise is low for a medium format SLR. The camera feels solid and fit and finish (considering the polycarbonate outer covers) are excellent. Although optical diagrams indicate that the 75mm AF lens is the same formula as the MF 75mm, my new 75mm AF is noticeably sharper wide open than my 75mm MF from 10 years ago. Could be sample variation or improved quality control? The 75mm AF is superbly sharp and contrasty at all apertures, but the out of focus areas look rather hard and blocky -- not the smooth "bokeh" of Pentax's 105mm for the 6X7. I wish Pentax had released a short AF telephoto for the 645N - the intial AF lens group jumps from 75mm to 300mm with only a 45-85 zoom in between. Its been a while since I have enjoyed shooting with a camera as much as with this one.