Hi <philosophy>
some time ago I aquired a 20D, and I've been gradually comming to terms with how to make the most of this camera, but owning it has revealed some things that I hadn't quite picked up on from just browsing specifications. For some time, one of the advantages of the EOS cameras over other 35mm cameras has been that everything in the range has been inter-usable. The D EOS has sort of changed that, for how I see things at least. I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts on this perspective. The first thing that comes up is lenses. I've been using 4x5 and 5x7 for a bit, and I'm familiar with the fact that film formats make different views from the same lens, and apart from the 1D and the 5D the others are a different 'film' format than the rest of the EOS cameras (ok, and the IX, but I'm not sure if there were many of those sold). Natually if you're a wildlife photographer the smaller film format is very nice, as it gets you just what you really wanted (closer to that thing), but if youre a wide angle person (I've got a 24mm TS-E that I use for quite a many of my shots) the loss of 'edges' is quite frustrating. In this case I feel that they're just not quite as 'compatible' apart from the ability to mount and operate the lens. The next thing that comes up is flash. I've been using the EZ series of flashes for some time, and have some 190's and off camera cables for multi flash use, and a 430EZ as a main flash. The D EOS cameras don't support TTL flash (as far as I know) and further introduce issues such as E-TTL I and E-TTL II incompatibilities. To me, the inability to use my existing flashes makes this highly frustrating, and expensive if you have to change equipment. I'm not sure what else I'll find, in the future, but so far I've not found that the D cameras are significantly more compatible with the range than F or T series cameras. Canon was critisized when introducing the EOS range just after starting people on the T series with the FD mount. Personally I am happy that back then I didn't invest in a F1, or a T90, and went with the then highly featured 630 (which I still own btw). I thought that the move to an electronic mount made sence, and AF was definately the way of the future. Even at that time the T series flashes could be used on the EOS cameras, although many FD series lenses were not easily adaptedto the EF mount. Nikon scored some points back then in this area by keeping their mount system reasonably compatible. If a camera body is only part of a system (and I've found the EOS system to my liking so far) then it seems to me that if we should call the D series cameras EOS, then it has in in some way undermined the compatibility that has previously been a strength of Canon EOS. Note, I've avoided the issue of film VS digital here, as I feel its a seperate question, and perhaps not EOS related. I use digital quite a bit, more than film these days, so I'm not at all 'anti digital' ... I just wish that Canon could have increased the compatibility between the systems, as the "leaverage off the investement you have in EOS system" has for me not been so strictly true with the D EOS cameras. </philosophy> now, out to take some photo's of the spring here in Finland ... See Ya * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
