I have a 7 year old EOS-1000FN with an auto focus canon lense (35-80mm). I am thinking of part-exchanging this system for the new EOS 3000N. Is this the best upgrade option (swapping like-for-like only more up-to-date) - or should I consider one of the other Canon possibilities in the same design/spec range ? Is it even worth considering a swap after only 7 years of moderate use ?

-- Abid Hussain (ah207@hotmail.com), September 02, 2001

Answers

Abid,

If you are going for a same level replacement, and your camera still works fine -- why bother? The only reason to upgrade is if the new camera body you're hot for has a feature you really want. If you feel that your current body is holding your photography back, then you should move up, not laterally. Look at an EOS 5 or EOS 30/33.

If you would like to discuss your needs, I’m sure this community would be happy to bewilder you with suggestions for different camera bodies! :-)

You’ll get suggestions ranging from “Buy an EOS 3/EOS 1v,” to “Sell all that automatic crap, and get your self a real camera – like a used Pentax K1000 with a 50mm f/2 lens!”

I look forward to the debate…what features are you desiring, what do you want to do with your camera, etc. ?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 02, 2001.

Abid,

The soft focus at the edges is entirely due to the lenses, and not the body. Even an EOS 1v would not help you there! You have simply outgrown the two lenses you have, which are consumer grade, and must start saving your money towards buying pro quality glass.

Canon’s L series lenses are more expensive because they are better. More effort went into the design, engineering, manufacturing tolerances & quality of glass that is used in the assembly. Specialty elements like low dispersion glass or fluorite were used to help correct for aberrations, etc.

There is one L series zoom that is going for a steal at B&H Photo (& likely other places as well). It is the EF 100-300 f/5.6L, which could replace your 75-300. It is old technology – no USM motors, and push-pull zoom design – but the glass is supposed to be very good! It is selling for $330 US, and you can’t get any other L series lens new for that! A 70-200mm f/4L USM would run you $630 US.

Two other options to your edge softness delema:

1. Look for used L series lenses (zooms or primes – either will be better than what you are used to).

2. To buy fixed focal length prime lenses in the focal lengths that you use most often. For example, an Canon 28mm f/2.8 ($185 US) for your architectural pictures, and a Sigma 300mm f/4 APO ($689 – ouch! Less expensive than Canon L, but still painful! I just did a quick search, and there may be less expensive options out there) your star shots. Then you would keep your current zooms for when convenience or versatility is more important than image quality.

Having great appreciation for the convenience of zooms, I still admit that prime lenses can be built sharper and better at the same price point as competitively priced zooms. By this I mean that a 35mm f/2 will perform better optically than your 35-70mm, and a 300mm f/4 would be sharper than your 75-300. An L series zoom (much more expensive) would be as good or nearly as good as your less expensive primes, but an L series prime would be even better optically.

Some prime lenses I found during a quick web search:

Sigma Macro 24mm f1.8 EX Aspherical DG Auto Focus Lens f/Canon EOS $299

Sigma Macro 300mm f/4.0 APO Auto Focus Lens f/Canon EOS $689

Canon Wide Angle 35mm f/2.0 EF Auto Focus Lens $240

Canon Wide Angle 28mm f/2.8 EF Auto Focus Lens $185

Canon Wide Angle 24mm f/2.8 EF Auto Focus Lens $310

Canon Wide Angle 35mm f/2.0 EF Auto Focus Lens $300

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 03, 2001.

There are worthwhile lenses outside of the L series...

Canon effectively have three lens ranges that they are starting to signify with different coloured rings, according to how good they are. They are using the same colour code as the electronics industry, with silver rings on the cheap lenses, gold rings on the middle lenses, and red rings on the expensive lenses. This mostly applies to zooms btw.

The cheapest lenses (like the 35-80, 28-80, 28-90) use micro-USM or non-USM motors, and mostly polycarbonate construction (including the lens mount).

The middle series lenses use Ring USM lenses and rear focus, with full-time manual focusing (eg 28-105 USM, 24-85 USM, 100-300 USM). These lenses are capable of producing a good image (I partner a 24-85 with my L series lenses).

Obviously at the top we have the L series, which are great. 'Nuff said. ;-).

The non L series primes are very respectable (eg both non L series 50mm primes outperform the 50 F1.0L, except for not having that enormous aperture of course). Look at www.photodo.com for independant MTF tests of these lenses.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 03, 2001.

Since the 1000FN (same as Rebel II), was upgraded to the 500 (Rebel X), and then the 500N Rebel G), and then the 300 (Rebel 2000), the logical update would be for the EOS 300/Rebel 2000. The 3000N is an update of the lower end 5000. To exchange the 1000FN for the 3000N would be more like a step back, in my opinion.

The 300/Rebel 2000 is a nice update, but the 30/Elan 7 is a much bigger improvement.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), September 04, 2001.

My sincere apologies Jim, but I discovered from a direct e- mail from Abid that his concern was actually about lens sharpness, and that would not be effected by the body. So, we moved on to lens suggestions for Abid. I should have posted his message to me here, before responding to it. That would have made all clear. I will address that now:

Hi Hung,

Thanks for your prompt reply to the query I posted on the EOS FAQ web site.

I have been debating the merits of swapping my 1000NF for about 3 years now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it - after all, its only had low-moderate use (approx 10 rolls of film per year since I bought it brand new in November 1994). The body and lenses (35-70 and a 70-300mm USM) have been well maintained throughout. I have had reat results photographing everything from Italian Cathedrals to streaking Comets to Solar Eclipses.

However, I can't help noticing that somehow all the photos appear somewhat....soft-focus. The edges around objects are never crystal clear. I usually just leave it on the "green" or the fully automatic "P" setting. It could be my poor technique, or it could be the film processing (I just give my developed films to a regular High- Street developer)..or it could be something else. Chances are its probably a bit of all those things! And yes, some of my techno-phobe friends/colleagues have indeed asked me to "dump the electronic gizmo and get a proper SLR camera - such as a 25 year old Olympus Trip 35!" When I see examples of their compositions...I see nothing dramatically different. So its been a bit of a conundrum. Not being able to resolve this, I just thought perhaps part-exchanging the system for a more recent machine might have benefits. But I needed the opinions of fellow Canon users - which is how I came to find the EOS FAQ web site.

If you are able to afford the time (and patience!), then please feel free to visit my own home page where all the pictures featured were taken with my 1000FN in the last 7 years or so. (The URL is given at the foot of this e-mail). Perhaps I'm just imagining this "soft-focus" problem. But as you said - why bother swapping if there is nothing wrong with what I already have ?

Many thanks.

Abid Hussain

http://abid.hussain.tripod.com

Abid, I look forward to checking your website (and pictures) out! As to your technophobe friends...you should have been in on the discussion I had with a nice & talented gentleman that insisted that his friends photos improved because he persuaded them to abandon all of L series lenses and EOS 3 (or 1, I can't remember) bodies for used Canon F1's and FD lenses! Even at the end, I don't think that I convinced him that it was his efforts to educate his friends on proper composition and technique that caused their photographs to improve. It was quite entertaining! I'm sure the thread is still rattling around somewhere in here, if you want to see what passionate technophobia looks like!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 04, 2001.

Oops! I didn't intend to make the entire bottom of the last post a link to Abid's web site -- I guess you can't miss it! :-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 04, 2001.

Many thanks to all those who have offered their insight into this 'problem.' I appreciate the time and patience - and of course the impartial free advice! I have a far better understanding of the camera-lense relationship now than I did a few days ago. Looks as if I have quite a lot of homework and thinking to do on this subject before committing cash to lense! But at least now I have plenty of guidelines. And by the way - since a used Olympus Trip 35 costs only 25 Pounds (approx 35 US dollars) I think I might just try one - if only to implicate - or vindicate - my technophobe friends! :o)

I shall keep the community here posted on my findings.

Abid Hussain. Tuesday 4th Sept 2001 08:50h.

-- Abid Hussain (ah207@hotmail.com), September 04, 2001.

Abid,

I, for one, look forward to hearing about your findings -- and also about your eventual decisions regarding lenses. :-)

By the way, I visited your site. I very much enjoyed your archetectural photos -- I had no idea how picturesque Cambridge is! I must visit someday. "I liked Cambridge - Punting on the river Cam"

There's no way to tell from the digital pics your concerns about lens sharpness. But that's besides the point - I believe you. With all the archetectural work you do, perhaps looking at a tilt-shift lens (yes, they're expensive) or a rails & bellows arrangement to help with perspective shift?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 04, 2001.

Anyone wishing to read more about Canon lense quality can go to the link below where there is a nice concise comparative study - with photos to illustrate the point:

http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality.html

Abid Hussain

-- Abid Hussain (ah207@hot,mail.com), September 05, 2001.

Abid,

Thank you for posting the link to Lens Quality: What Do You Get For All That Money?. I found the site to be balanced & informative.

I also appreciated the comparison of the 50mm f/1.4 USM versus the f/1.8! (Lens Quality Part 2: Normal Lenses (50 mm)). I'd always heard that there was no appreciable difference between the two besides ergonomics. Clearly the f/1.4 is superior (whether it's 4 times more superior is an individual decision :-) -- unless the sharpness variation can be explained away in manufacturing variations from lens to lens. It was a small sample size (1 of each lens) after all. Still, I'd go for the f/1.4 if I had the cash. ;-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 06, 2001.