I have recommend to my brother-in-law (who I like), to purchase an Elan 7E, 28-135IS, and 420EX, as an upgrade to his AE1. I am now getting a bit concerned about the low light focusing sensitivity, especially after reading Phillips equipment review addendum in photo.net.

Is the main problem the fact that Canon “cheapened out” by deleting the near infer-red focus assist (like on the Elan II), and replacing it with a white light pulse unit on the pop-up flash? Or is the natural low light capability inferior to the Elan II (which I own and have been very satisfied with its low light capabilities)?

It is likely that he will have the 420EX attached whenever the light is low, so that the near infer-red asset will be functioning.

Should I have him look elsewhere for a new AF system (like an N80)?

-- Ken Katz (socks@bestweb.net), July 05, 2001

Answers

"It is likely that he will have the 420EX attached whenever the light is low, so that the near infra-red asset will be functioning."

If this is truly the case, then there is a custom function on the Elan 7 that sets the flash to be used for its AF assist light only. Therefore, it focuses nearly as well as the Elan II did in darker situations. I don't think the II focuses better in low light, I think that the light on the II would make any camera focus better in low light.

Canon did save a little money on deleting the on-body AF light, but the added custom function is nice. Not a perfect trade off, but nice.

Remember that not all photos are taken in low light. The Elan 7 focuses much faster than the Elan II in bright light and its AI servo is far advanced beyond the II.

What does the N80 use for an AF assist light?

-- Roger S. (rashrader@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.

From Canon's brochures:

"Elan II AF working range: EV 0~18"

"Elan 7/7e AF working range: EV 1~18 (at ISO 100 with the standard chart)"

Plus the 7 lacks the near-infrared patterned AF assist light.

Oh, why, Canon? Why? The Elan 7 is so nice in other ways, why cheap out on something reasonably important like low-light focusing?

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), July 05, 2001.

The Elan 7 uses a CMOS AF sensor and the Elan II use a more sensitive CCD. Same with the 1v and the 3, but they seem to make it work better in low light.

The 28-135 USM IS isn't the best thing to focus in low light either. The aperture is a bit slow and it "hunts" some when using it in low light/contrast situations. The 28-105 USM is more sure.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), July 05, 2001.

Thanks for your responses on this matter. I just want my brother-in- law to be happy with the camera (or at least not bitch to me). It is just a little disappointing to hear people complain about AF performance on a new EOS, since Canon’s current leadership position in professional 35mm is due, in no small part, to superior AF performance over the competition.

I recommended the 28-105 or 24-85 over the 28-135, because of the extra bulk and weight and cost. At least, at my insistence, he will buy the lens hood.

-- kenneth katz (socks@bestweb.net), July 07, 2001.

Your brother is going from a manual focus AE1 to an AutoFocus Elan 7. Why is your concern AF in low light? Is it due to lack of split focusing screen on most AF bodies? How much low light photography does your brother do?

I only ask this to place the capabilities of the Elan 7 into perspective. If low light AF is a priority, and a fast lens + AF assist on the 420EX is not sufficient, then you must simply settle on a different body. Keep in mind that 1 EV change is a one stop difference. Get a cheap & fast prime lens (like a 50mm f/1.8) for use in such situations & it'll more than make up the difference of 1 EV + the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS (as far as autofocusing is concerned. You might get lower shutterspeeds while hand-holding with the IS).

It comes down to whether the positive features of the Elan 7 are worth the disadvantages, bearing in mind that there no perfect solutions.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 16, 2001.

Hung:

My point was this; Philip reviewed the Elan 7, and when using primarily a 50 f1.4, he was disappointed and frustrated with its low light/contrast focusing capabilities, when compared with previous EOS bodies, and other AF systems (like the new Nikon N80). This is not a good thing, and the whole point of buying a modern AF SLR is reliable AF performance. My Elan IIE will AF reliably in low light/contrast situations (maybe not as fast as an EOS 3 or 1V) and within the range of its built in near infra red assist, in total darkness.

Sooner or later, my brother-in law will try to shoot in a low light situations that are outside the effective range of the EX 420 assist, or that flash is prohibited (like shooting a school play, or indoor youth sports, or at a museum), and I would hope he will not be disappointed with the Elan 7.

When I bought the Elan IIE in 1996, it was clearly superior in AF performance, ergonomics, lens selection, and USM technology to any competitor in its price range (N70, Minolta 600). The Elan 7E is a very nice camera, but does not overwhelm the current competition. There are no perfect solutions, but IMHO, the Elan 7, in 2001, seems a less perfect solution than the Elan IIE did in 1996.

-- kenneth katz (socks@bestweb.net), August 27, 2001.

Kenneth,

All of your points are well taken. I agree with you that the Elan II has superior low light AF ability. So does the A2/A2e, which is priced very similarly to the Elan 7 (a fine camera with a zooming pop- up flash head).

I was only trying to point out that the advances of the Elan 7 are in ergonomics (the diopter adjustment, AF point arrows within the command dial), faster daylight AF, & improved Eye Control Focus. The Elan 7 definitely has lost ground on low light AF sensitivity (I blame the CMOS sensor, but I could very well be wrong), and should never have lost the near-IR AF assist light (I understand it being done on the Rebel to save cost).

I certainly did not mean to imply that the Elan 7 is a perfect camera, for it is not. My intent was only to help clarify the differences so that your brother-in-law could make an informed decision on what body to buy (I still very much like the A2e, for instance). I hope that I did not offend in any way – and if I did I humbly apologize!

PS I apologize also for taking so long to reply back. I couldn’t get back in to LUSENET for the past several days. I have no idea whether the site was down, or just my ISP was misbehaving.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 29, 2001.

>Should I have him look elsewhere for a new AF system (like an N80)?

By all means, your brother-in-law should look at all of the similarly priced alternatives out there (Nikon included) -- and pick the best body & lens system for his needs. Since he has no AF lenses now, it'd be a good time to do so. The only reason for him to stick with Canon, is if you wanted to be able to share lenses. Good luck!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 29, 2001.

Hung,

I was not offended, and I appreciated your thoughts on this. In fact this thread has probably gone on too long already, and Bob has probably designated it for imminent deletion.

-- Ken Katz (socks@bestweb.net), August 30, 2001.