Hi:
> Jim Davis wrote:
>
> > I think the best indicator of camera bodies is the number you find
for
> > sale used in the camera stores.
>
> I think this would be true only if you knew why they were there. For
example, at
Completely agree. At the local store here, there are quite a few Nikons,
Hasselblad and bunch of Canon 6xx. Only one or two Elan's are sitting
around (not the II). No 3, 1n or even Elan II are within the radar screen.
>From the two places I've lived (HK and Greater Vancouver), used Canon's are
always in short supply compared to Nikon and other brands.
>
> > This tells me that perhaps the EOS 3 is not all that people expect
or
> > want in a camera.
>
> Or perhaps it is *more* than some people want in a camera. What if someone
> traded in a 3 because they found it "too complicated"? Or for a 1vs?
Actually, I've heard a lot of pro's have traded in their 3 for 1v's.
Unfortuately, I've not found any used EOS 3 in the local stores (Act. there
was one but was gone in a day or so).
>
> > My own take on the EOS 3 is, it's nice but doesn't need the ECF,
should
> > have a built in flash, and cost too much.
>
> I agree about ECF, disagree about a built-in flash. As for cost . . .
well,
> again, that depends on the market and prices relative to income.
Perhaps one should say Elan II or 7 should have spot meter and 1/8000
shutter speed?
>
> > Oh ya, it's a bit heavy and bulky
> > as well. I think a pro'd go for a 1N,
>
> It is not clear to me that a pro, who can treat the cost of a camera as a
> business expense in any case, would take the more technologically-limited
1n
> over a 3. And for many advanced amateurs, the EOS 3--new, with
warranty--for
> less than US$900 represents a pretty good value, especially compared to
the
> 1v--or a second-hand 1n. KEH, one of the "benchmark" dealers of
second-hand gear
> in the U.S., wants US$850 for a 1n in "excellent" condition. About the
only
> things the 1n offers that the 3 doesn't is a 100% viewfinder, built-in
dioptric
> correction, and a slightly higher X-sync speed (and an eyepiece
shutter??),
> while the 3 offers quite a few advancements over the 1n (including E-TTL
flash
> and more advanced AF), and it weighs less.
>
If I were a pro, I would have gone for 1v instead of 1n for the E-TTL and
the extra ruggedness. I also think EOS-3 is a much better value over 1n
unless the 100% viewfinder is absolutely necessary. Besides, a brand new 1n
would be around the same price as a 3 (see B&H). That's why I went for 3 :)
> > That puts the EOS 3 in nowhere land. It wouldn't surprise me if they
> > dropped it from the line, or replaced it real soon
>
> I would be extremely surprised, especially given the example of the 5/A2,
which
> is still in the product lineup. IMO the EOS 3 will continue to be a very
capable
> camera for quite a while yet.
I don't think so. That sits in the market where serious amateur who don't
want to spend so much on 1v but would want a "rugged" enough body. If one
looks around, similar brand, like Nikon and Minolta are pushing out model
along this line. Personally, I would of course want to have an inexpensive
but good camera...
Regards,
Gary
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
