I'm looking for a more solid alternative for my EOS 5/A2E and an old EOS 1 seems to be a very attractive option here. The 2-3 comments I received in the EOS ML and rec.*.35mm indicated that the AF performance is just soso. I really don't need a sophisticated flash system or super fast AF but AF accuracy is a certain issue. Any comments ? Is it at least as good/accurate as -say- an EOS 100/Elan or an EOS 5/A2E. The specs mention that the AF works down to EV -1 so it should be somewhat better than consumer grade bodies in low light conditions - or is this a wrong assumption ?

-- Klaus Schroiff (kschroiff@baunetz.de), February 08, 1999

Answers

(This may get long) I have an Elan IIe and an EOS-1, so I will add my observations. The accuracy of AF on the EOS-1 is very good, in general. The rub is, when/if you use slower lenses the eos-1 doesnt seem to use its horizontal AF sensor. For instance, if I use my 75-300 IS @300/f5.6 and try to focus on the siding of my neighbors house (only horizontal lines, no other contrast), the eos-1 won't focus unless I hold the camera vertical, then it snaps right on. My Elan IIe focuses no problem either horizontal or vertical. With a faster lens, like an 85 f1.8, the eos-1 snaps into focus in either plane. (to be perfectly honest, I dont remember testing it with my 300 f4L, so I will withold comment on what aperture the horizontal sensor is active. Also of note, this is not light related, as I have done this in mid day and pretty dim light with the same results...... But who takes pictures of horizontal siding only (I used it for an AF test). Now, for real world, low light work, like shooting wild life late in the day, I use the two interchangeably, and feel they (Elan II and eos-1) are equals, neither having a clear advantage in my use. Another factor for low light AF performance (which I notice indoors) is that the eos-1 doesnt have an AF assist light built in, which the Elan II does. With no external flash available, the Elan II easily betters the eos-1 indoors in low light due to its built in light. HOWEVER, when using a flash with a built in AF light (I have a 380 ex), the field is again fair, with no real advantage to either. How the eos-1 stacks up to the A2 I dont know, but in spite of the horizontal sensor idiosynchrosies, I find that the Elan II and eos-1 AF performance is very close in acctual use, even with the 300 f4 and 1.4 teleconverter. (I should note that the 75-300 IS is my only zoom, and generally I use fast primes, so your results may vary considerably with different lenses).

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), February 12, 1999.

I checked today using a 300 f4, and focusing on siding (only contrast is horizontal lines) the eos-1 wont AF unless held vertically, while the Elan IIe AF's in both planes. I rechecked using a 50 f1.4, and both bodies AF in vertical and horizontal with it.

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), February 12, 1999.

Thanks your answers! I'm actually not suprised that the cross sensor is not working beyond f/2.8 because that's the limit Canon has set for the EOS 1n as well. Even with the new EOS 3 the cross sensors works only down to f/4! However, I didn't know that a consumer grade body like the EOS Elan II has no such limits except the usual one at f/5.6.

It doesn't make a difference for me though. Basically I just wanted to know whether the AF performance is still usable by todays standards and you confirmed this more or less. Thanks.

Do you see any severe drawbacks in regard to the EOS 1 or can you recommend it without too much hesitation ?

-- Klaus Schroiff (kschroiff@baunetz.de), February 12, 1999.

Klaus,

Allow me to draw a parallel here. In its day, the A1 was Canon's second best manual focus SLR, akin to the EOS 5/A2E in the current lineup (I excluded the EOS 3 from this because there is some debate over whether it's actually better than the 1n.)

Today, the cheapest Canon autofocus SLR has all the sophisticated electronics and modes found on the old A1---and more.

The EOS 1 was built like a tank. Not a bad camera. The 1n made some significant improvements. The EOS 3 has a few more and it's quite possible that the 1n will be upgraded soon.

Your EOS 5/A2E is now the oldest technology in Canon's current lineup. The EOS 1 is even older.

The decision how to spend your money is yours, but I would want the most bang for my buck (in your case, the most muscle for my mark). That answer is up to you but I would suggest leaning toward more current technology. I would suspect, too, that at some point the EOS 3 will come down in price.

-- Dick Ginkowski (dickg@execpc.com), February 13, 1999.

klaus, since you're more concerned with accuracy then speed you'd be better off with the eos 1. (providing you use fast lenses (see below))

the eos-1/1n has an extra sensor that works at f2.8 or better. this is an entirely different sensor and is 'better' than the corresponding sensor on the other eos cameras, and the other sensors on the eos-1. besides working as the cross sensor it is supposed to provide more accurate focusing (not nesessarily faster or in lower light, but actually more accurate)

all eos focusing is passive, meaning that it looks at the image and focus to minimise the contrast variations. the camera keeps varying the focusing until the minumum point is reached. this is NOT an exact science and there is some inherant error in the system. a sensor designed to work at f5.6 and below has a certain fixed (small) error anount. a sensor designed to work at f2.8 and below has a SMALLER error amount. and a sensor designed to work at f8 and below (while very useful) has a LARGER error amount.

so... in theory with f2.8 and faster lenses the eos-1 should focus 'better' then other eos cameras. from f2.8-f5.6 it should be the same.

P.S. as mr. terry noted experimentally... the one caevat is that the elan-II has a 'regular' f5.6 cross sensor. while the only cross sensor on the eos-1 is the 'improved' f2.8 one. so... with a f3.5- f5.6 lens on the camera the elan-II actually has a bit of an advantage in that is has a cross sensor working while the eos-1 does not.

since i tend to use fast prime lenses, this isn't a concern of mine. but if all you have is lenses slower then f2.8 you're probably better off with the eos-5 or elan-II or even the original elan. they all have cross sensors that work up to f5.6

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), February 13, 1999.

I've used the EOS 3 and the 1n and it seems the EOS 3 focuses a tad faster although I felt the 1n did a better job tracking birds in flight. There are some deals on 1n bodies now to put them under $1100.

-- Dick Ginkowski (dickg@execpc.com), February 14, 1999.

The main reason I'm looking for the EOS 1 has really nothing to do with its features and technology. As mentioned above I have an EOS 5 which is a pretty complete camera in most respects. However, I've switched off eye-controlled AF all the time, use just the central AF sensor and use primarily center-weighted and spot metering. Somehow I doubt that I would use more than that with the 1n or the 3 because these technologies are still far from being perfect. So if I don't need them why should I spend additional bucks here ? The final question for me is simply whether the AF stable (accurate and without much hunting) - speed is quite unexciting for me. So far I understand that my 300/4L + 1.4x would be the problem with the old EOS 1. Hmmh, I guess I have to test this in the shop. Thanks.

-- Klaus Schroiff (kschroiff@baunetz.de), February 15, 1999.

I believe that given your needs and uses, you would be very happy with the eos-1, and I find that in acctual use, it does quite well with the 300 f4/TC1.4 combo. When I bought mine, it came as an interesting barter, but I have found that it has been just the ticket for me, as I was more interested in durability then features.There are some great deals to be had on eos-1's, and it is quite a workhorse.

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), February 15, 1999.