well, i am contemplating of buying either eos 3, eos 1n-rs or eos 1v to upgrade my eos 30. One reason would be its tough body... Can someone please suggest which one should I pick and why... or maybe not upgrade at all?? thanks Question 2: are all the cameras stated above have the same picture quality???

-- kerwinchan (kerwinchan828@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002

Answers

Only buy the 1NRS if you have some specific need for the fixed mirror. The 1VHS can match the frame-rate of the 1NRS without the fixed mirror anyway, with much superior AF.

What do you mean by "The same picture quality"? When the shutter is open, the lens is the only factor in the image (excepting, of course, the mirror in the 1NRS). Thus, I suppose you could say that maybe the 1NRS is worse, I do not know. The EOS 1V is the toughest of the cameras mentioned, but at a price and weight. The EOS 3 is my choice, and I intend to get one soon to replace my EOS 5.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 16, 2002.

Like the previous response said, don't buy a 1N RS unless you actually do need the pellicle mirror. That 10 fps on the 1N RS is without AF, as is the 6 ms shutter release delay; if you're using AF, the maximum speed drops and the shutter lag goes up. On the positive side, you'll get less mirror slap on the 1N RS and you can see what's going on even while taking the picture, so if your subject blinked, you'll know before you get the film back from the lab. The 1V is superior in most ways; it matches the 10 fps without AF, and if you do want AF, the 1V is faster. Not to mention all of the other advances in a body that's several years more recent.

As for which camera would be the best upgrade, there's no single answer that's right for everyone. The only criterion you gave is "tough body", so assuming that's the only thing that's important to you in a camera body (probably not a good assumption), the 1V is the one. But there's a heck of a lot more to a camera than simply how tough its body is, so tell us more about what you do and what you do and don't like about the 30 and maybe we can give you a better answer.

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), January 16, 2002.

IMHO the 1V is not worth the $ and the 3 would be your best bet. Don't get me wrong the 1V is an incredible camera but I can't see spending 2K or even close to it on a film camera. It's just nuts. Unless...

1 You need the absolute fastest camera possible. 2 Constantly shoot in sideways rain. 3 Like to beat up on your equipment. 4 Want your film camera to match you EOS 1D

The 3 is durable/weather resistant/fast/reliable/and 1/2 the price. An EOS 3 would be great even for a sports shooter or photojournalist. If my wife can get by with an N90s and an F5 {she works for a newspaper} then you would have no toubles with a 3 in fact I think that the 3 is a beter built camera than an Nikon F5. Great now I won't be able to go home cause she is going to start that Nikon vs. Canon crap. Anyway if you need the ultimate you are going to have to pay for it on the other hand buying an EOS 3 is by no way settling for a product that will not work for you. Plus you can buy a back up body or another lens with the $ saved.

If you noticed I didn't mention the 1RS. Old tech that is surpassed by the 1V also it knocks off an f stop cause you are shooting through the mirror.

Hope this helps.

-- john (mr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), January 16, 2002.