Ken;
Thanks for the report! You're a better resource than Pop Photo! ( That
*was* meant as a compliment :>)
The F100 and EOS-3 ("The Triumph"?) are getting so much fawning praise
from the mags that it's nice to see an unbiased opinion. I especially
enjoyed your confirmation of my feelings about the EOS3s viewfinder.
How can you compose a photo with all those distractions? And
eye-control? I've always felt that was the ultimate gimmick. Lastly,
your commentary on the IS zoom was a point I'd never thought of. Great
work.
George
Oh and BTW, that Tokina - I guess it's not available in OM mount?
Ken Norton wrote:
>
> >>Oh, and I looked at the F100, F5, EOS-1n, EOS-3 and the Pentax 645-AF.
> >>Report to follow...
> >
> >As long as you're looking at toys, don't forget a G2...
>
> G2? Hey, I've got to draw the line somewhere. <g>
>
> Ok, here goes:
>
> My goal yesterday was not to compare every imaginable feature/capability of
> the cameras but to determine how the cameras felt and handled. In directly
> comparing the cameras I was shocked at what I discovered! I've been trying
> to maintain an open mind on the Nikon vs Canon thing and didn't think it
> would be a slam dunk one way or the other. I also encountered a few
> suprises. Read on.
>
> Nikon F5: Wow, what a camera! This really is pretty much the ultimate
> 35mm camera--except it is big and heavy. I'm relishing the thought of
> backpacking with this monster! Positive note is that it is all
> inclusive--no motor drives to attach, etc. It's a complete, all-in-one
> package. Viewfinder display is relatively non-obtrusive and really didn't
> interfere too much with composing. (I'm very sensitive to viewfinder
> interference, hence why I use 1-4 and 2-4 screens in the OMs).
> Disadvantage of the viewfinder is that the selected focus spot brackets
> darken a little, but hardly enough to identify which spot is active. Also,
> when in dynamic af, there is very little to no indication of which spot is
> tracking the subject. When holding the camera in vertical mode the shutter
> release is positioned very well and the camera balances well. Actually,
> I'd say that the balance on the camera is supurb and even though it is
> heavy it handles very well.
>
> Nikon F100: I thought this was going to be lighter than the F5. Oh well,
> Nikon goofed in that department. Even though it is lighter, it doesn't
> feel it. The additional mass of the F5 down below is gone in the F100, but
> so is some of the stability. Oddly enough, the F100 seems to need the
> booster pack to give it the balance the F5 has. Ok, nitpicks aside, the
> viewfinder in the F100 is far better as the active spot flashes red vs the
> F5's invisible in low light gray spot. The focus screens in the Nikons are
> very bright and clear. The bokah is better than Olympus's 2-series
> screens, but the brightness is about the same. The image clarity is so
> bright and clear that it's almost like looking through a completely optical
> system with no focus screen involved. Unfortunately, some of the focus
> "snap" that the Nikons are known for is gone. It actually was a bit more
> difficult to manually focus the Nikon than the Canon. At around half the
> cost of the F5, the F100 is very tempting and I could actually get a couple
> of them. Hmm.
>
> Canon EOS-1n: Fastest autofocus around! Without a doubt the sports
> photographer would pick this puppy first! Also, I'd say that it was a bit
> more accurate than the Nikon. Viewfinder isn't as bright but does have
> more snap. Brightness was somewhere between Olympus' 1-series and 2-series
> screens. Focus screen is not laser etched. Viewfinder display is
> distracting with five squares lined up across the screen. What? No
> vertical dots? Obviously this camera is better at horizontal compositions
> than verticals. Motor drive was faster/quieter than the Nikon, but the
> camera had noticebly more shock from the mirror/shutter. The camera needs
> the mass/weight just to keep the shock under control. I played around with
> their new 35-135??? internal stabalization lens. WOW, it actually works.
> But.... Get real folks, let's think about it. The lens was a variable
> aperature 4.5-5.6 and the IS helps improve two stops. The size/weight of a
> fixed aperature 2.8 zoom would have been the same. Duh! Still, it's a nice
> lens and I wouldn't mind having it.
>
> Canon EOS-3: Ahem, uh, where do I start? Well, I'll keep this one short
> and sweet. Viewfinder is like watching fireworks. The focus screen is so
> noisy that I couldn't compose a picture in it if my life depended on it.
> Until they optically overlay the spots on the viewfinder so they are
> completely invisible (when off), I'll have to pass on this puppy. The eye
> control is cool, but doesn't work well for me as I'm constantly scanning
> the entire image and watching my edges and rarely look directly and solely
> at the subject. Compared to the EOS-1n, F100 and F5, the EOS-3 feels like
> ^#%@. Multi-spot capability is nice, but not an important enough feature
> for me to deal with the downsides of this camera. Camera is NOT balanced.
>
> Pentax 645-AF: Slow shutter-sync speed (still haven't gotten a difinitive
> answer on exactly what the sync speed is), only a single focus spot and
> noisy. The viewfinder is excellent and the information displayed in
> various places is terrific. The focus motor in the lens was so noisy that
> I almost jumped out of my skin. It was very reminise of the first
> generation AF stuff from Olympus and Minolta. I hope that they get some
> quieter motors in next year's lenses. I don't like the thought of using
> that noisy of a camera during a wedding. Motor drive was quiet though.
> The focus screen is bright, snappy and the way life is supposed to be.
> Very tempting and makes me wonder if the new Contax 645AF might be the way
> to go.
>
> Ok, direct comparison times: (non-scientific, and strictly user
> impression, not spec sheet)
>
> Size: The F100 seemed the smallest of the bunch with the EOS-3 just
> behind. The EOS-1n actually felt larger than the F5.
>
> Weight: Obviously, the EOS-3 was the lightest, followed by the F100, but
> the EOS-1n felt tons heavier than the F5. What? you ask? Yup, even though
> their weights are almost identical, the EOS-1n felt much heaver because...
>
> Holdability: The F5 fit my hands perfectly. The balance, size and
> gripability of the F5 matched my hands very well. I suffer from carpel
> tunnel and the Nikons didn't stress the tendons in my wrist at all. THe
> EOS's grip was slightly larger, but didn't fit right. This was exactly the
> information I needed to determine what camera system to go with. After
> about 2 minutes with the EOS-1n I was ready to set it down. I just didn't
> want to hold it. Your mileage may vary as everybody's hands are different.
> The EOS-3 I couldn't hold still and the F100 needed just a bit more mass.
> Hmm. I don't think my wife is going to like this. <g>
>
> Lens mount: The Canon lens mount is definetely better and wider. The
> Nikon's is tiny in comparison to even the Olympus mount. But it works.
>
> Lenses: The Canon lenses are supurb, but the newer, better quality Nikon
> lenses feel far better being manual focused. Much closer to the OM/Zuikos
> in feel. Nikon is finally starting to get decent AF lenses.
>
> Ok, now for the suprise:
>
> The Tokina 20-35/2.8 lens is the most awesome wide angle lens I have ever
> used. The sharpness and contrast are so high that I almost left my entire
> camera bag in exchange for an F100 and this lens. If there is any one item
> that could tear me away from the Olympus, it's this lens. Without a doubt,
> this lens is the sharpest wide angle I have seen and it is so good at the
> 20mm setting without showing any apparant distortion at any setting. There
> was absolutely no vignetting. Did I mention the contrast? Oh, what about
> the contrast? Hey, did anybody say anything about contrast? I also looked
> at Nikon's offering, but at twice the price it didn't have anywhere near
> the contrast. This is a must have lens, no matter what. Every other lens
> I looked through yesterday was a dog in comparison to this lens.
>
> So, yes, I liked the lens.
>
> I've tried to be as open as possible to either Canon or Nikon, but it is
> clearly apparent that I'm now leaning in the direction of Nikon. The
> question now remains as to which one. My selecting Nikon over Canon is
> strictly based on my usability. Either system is excellent and when
> comparing features, they both would do nicely. But, the question remained:
> What camera felt right? This is a very subjective thing and everybody has
> unique desires. I hope that I didn't come across as bashing Canon, because
> that is far from my attitude. Canons are excellent cameras and I'd be
> happy with them, but I now believe that I'd be much happier with the Nikons.
>
> Alas, if only Olympus had decent AF.
>
> Ken
>
> Kenneth E. Norton
> Image66 Photography
>
> image66@xxxxxxx
> (515) 791-2306
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|