Jaakko Pitk�j�rvi wrote:
> I have seriously estimated EOS 30 for my next body. I would like to know your
> experiences, is EOS 30 worth thinking compared to EOS 3. EOS 30's 4 fps is enough
> for me, but how about autofocus compared to EOS 3? Is it suitable for fast moving
> objects? I am shooting boats and ships indoor/at sea for my living
Somebody else wrote:
> >I'm currently thinking about the same myself. I leaning slightly to the
> >EOS 30 (EOS 33, actually) as it's supposed to be so quiet while the EOS 3
> >is supposed to be quite noisy. Also, I'm not sure if the EOS 3 is all that
> >much more solid than the EOS 30/33. The EOS 3 is not metal. In practice,
> >it probably makes little to no difference to me and is all about feel.
If you use them interchangeably you will quickly realize that the 3 is considerably
more robust (at least if feels that way) than the 30. The 30 may have its (soft,
zinc-alloy) metal on the outside, whereas the 3 has its metal chassis covered by a
strong, shock-absorbing reinforced polycarb resin--if the protection offered by the
30's construction was better, wouldn't the 3 be built the same? The 30 is a nice
camera for what it is, but shoot with one for a while and then pick up a 3 and it's
like a whole different machine. The 3 exudes precision in a way the 30 does not
(mine also has a much more sensitive shutter button, so when switching from 30 to 3
I usually end up shooting one or more frames unintentionally!). The 3 is also much
better sealed against moisture, which may be a consideration if you work near water
a lot. The EOS 30 is a nice camera; the EOS 3 is a pleasure to use.
Some folks consider the lack of a built-in flash a point against the 3, but I
disagree--built-in flash is good for snapshots but not much else (although I admit
that dialed down to -1 or so, the flash of the 30 does an adequate job for
fill-flash if you don't need the modeling produced by an off-axis flash), while
significantly reducing the weather-resistance and overall solidity of construction.
It is interesting that most folks who seem to dislike the 3 or have complaints about
it are those who don't actually use one. One or two 3 owners have remarked that they
don't seem to be able to get good results with ECF, perhaps because they wear
glasses, but they don't seem to dislike their cameras because of it. Same with the
under-exposure problem of early models--this seems to concern those who don't have
one more than those who do. FWIW, my personal experience with ECF, as an eyeglass
wearer, in the 3 is that it works as well as might be expected, but it doesn't suit
the way I work, so I don't mess with it. The AF works very well, and is faster with
a single focus point selected. When multiple points are active, the camera too often
selects the "wrong" thing on which to focus (meaning one other than what I want); I
imagine this is true with other AF designs as well (I've never allowed my 30 to
choose a focus point). I haven't seen any EOS 3 owners complaining about the
robustness of their cameras (I certainly have no complaints in that regard).
If I had to guess, the 30 offers about 70-80% of the performance of the 3. You don't
get quite the precision or release-speed of the 3's shutter, or its weather sealing
and overall build quality. Then there are all the specs that can be compared (fps,
AF sensitivity, etc.). As for features, the advantages of the PB-E2 over the BP-300
are largely a matter of personal preference, as are the presence or absence of a
built-in flash. I suspect the AF and AE systems of the two bodies are very similar,
as in many ways the 30 seems to be a scaled-down version of the 3, more than an
update to the 5. If you want/need spot metering or interchangeable focusing screens
(I like the grid screen for the 3), then the 3 is your choice; if not, the 30 will
probably suffice in terms of features.
In comparison to the EOS 5, I think the 30 is superior in every way. It is a bit
more compact, appears to be more robust (and certainly doesn't have the command-dial
problem as far as we know), has a real battery pack instead of a simple vertical
grip, and has much more up-to-date electronics. The only advantages of the 5 are its
separate focus assist lamp (the 30 uses its flash), spot metering, and
interchangeable focusing screens. Also, the controls and viewfinder display of the
30 are more like those of the 3 and 1v than are those of the 5. I replaced a 5 with
a 30 and have no regrets.
Having said all that, I like my 30 (�lan 7). It is just right for what I want it
for--a lightweight, carry-around camera for backpacking and hiking, and for those
times when photography is not my primary objective. It makes an outstanding second
body, behind the 3. But if I were to have only one body, I would certainly opt for
the 3 if I could afford it (and US prices have dropped about $500 since I bought
mine).
> Ken Durling wrote:
>
> The EOS 3 is considerably louder than
> the EOS 33, but it is a nice sound.
Oh yes! A sound of solid precision you just don't get with the 30.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My 300 seemed to be able to focus in dim
> light more easily. I finally figured out why: I always had my 300 set up to
> choose it's own focussing point. On the 5 however I would use eye-control to
> chose a focussing point myself. If I set up the 5 to allow it to choose a
> focussing point by itself it is just a good as the newer 300. On the other hand,
> if I choose a focussing point on the 300 manually, it focusing ability is
> reducced to that of the 5 in eye-control mode...
> (BTW: does anybody know why????? Why is focussing ability reduced if I manualy
> choose a focussing point?)
One at a time:
Comparing the EOS 300 (Rebel 2000) with all points active vs. EOS 5 using ECF: the
AF algorithms of the 300 are quite a bit newer than those of the 5, and presumably
work better; the ECF of the 5 is an older version, and in any case ECF isn't
particularly fast (and depends a lot on how well it reads your eye). It's no great
surprise that the 300 with all points selected seems to AF better than the 5 using
ECF.
Comparing the EOS 300 with all points active with the EOS 5 also with all points
active: if there's a surprise here it's that the older EOS 5 keeps up the with
newer EOS 3 (although the 5 is a better-specified model, so perhaps there should be
no surprise).
Comparing the EOS 300 with a single point selected with the EOS 5 using ECF: First
of all, are we to assume you chose the center focusing point for the 300? Secondly,
what constitutes "focusing ability"?--in other words, what is it that the 5 is doing
better than the 3? Did you compare both cameras with just the center point selected?
At any rate, we might expect the newer 300 with the center point selected to AF
faster than the EOS 5 using ECF, but perhaps this reflects the higher position in
Canon's product range of the EOS 5.
The point I want to make is that it is, IMO, misleading in the extreme to suggest
that "focusing ability is reduced if a single focusing point is manually chosen,"
without significant qualification. I have never seen any other claim, or had
first-hand experience, of AF performance being worse with a single point chosen than
in any other mode, in Canon AF cameras.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
