Greetings,

I'm relatively new to photography, and I like the ease of the new APS film system.

I'm looking for educated opinions on the Canon EOS IX and EOS IX Lite, as well as on the quality of APS.

Am I going to get the same quality pictures with an EOS IX and APS that I would with an EOS Rebel and 35mm?

I am not interested in religeous debates or flame wars, just educated opinions.

Thanks!

-- Jon ANhold (jon@snoopy.net), September 10, 1999

Answers

I've owned the EOS IX for 3 months. It is handsome, solidly constructed and a serious photographic tool. The stainless steel body enhances the look and feel...it feels good in the hand. I didn't like the IX Lite due to its plastic look and feel (& plastic lens mount). The EOS IX is on closeout for $250 san lens or for $500 with the 24-85 USM at CWO and other internet camera shops.

Larger lenses (e.g., 200 2.8 L or 300 F4 L) don't balance well on the IX's small body. Small zooms and prime lenses balance perfectly. However, the pictures aren't as sharp as my EOS A2 due to increased grain, especially panoramic prints with ISO 400 film. I now stick with ISO 100 film and the grain is less obvious. I miss being able to use slide film. However, I'm happy using this camera as a snapshot camera.

The camera has one problem:the view finder is dim and small (only 60% life size), even dimmer than the EOS 1N (3 stops light loss?). Thus, slow zooms (e.g., F5.6) are too dark to use indoors, even during the day (use a 2.8 or faster lenses indoors or at night). The same lens on my A2 is much brighter. If it had a brighter view finder it would be almost perfect.

The camera's technology, features and operation are almost the same as a Rebel. It lacks the "quick control" wheel of the bigger EOS cams so exposure compensation and manual exposure are more of a hassle. However, as much as I like this little camera, if I could only own one camera, either a EOS IX or a Rebel, I'd go for the Rebel: the larger negative really makes a difference if you enlarge beyond 4x6; film and processing is cheaper; and you have a wide range of film types to sample.

-- P.K. Frary (lccplucker@aol.com), September 11, 1999.

I have owned an IX Lite and an EOS5 for about a year. The IX Light is great for vaccation snapshooting. It is small and light enough to carry around all the time (Like the cameras used to be 20 years ago). I love the possibility to select format. When I bought the IX Light the IX was much more expensive. Now IX and IX Light are sold at about the same price. I would by the IX if I did it over again. No contest. The IX has the feeling of quality and the viewfinder is just as cramped on the IX Light. You also wanted to know if APS delivers the same picture quality as 35mm film. There is only one answer to this: NO. The difference is clearly visible even in small prints. But APS is good enough for snapshots. Together with a decent zoom (like Canons 28-105) you will get a perfect travel camera. PS: The APS film choice is critical. I have used Kodak film exclusivly for over 20 years and they have never let me down, but after 25 rolls of Kodak APS film I switched to Fuji. The Kodak 100 and 200 films are (IMHO) far inferior to their Fuji counterparts. The Kodak 400 APS film is terrible. Avoid, avoid. Kodak ought to pay you money for buing this film, not the other way around. Nowadays I mainly use Fuji 200, which is a good allround film.

-- Kjell Kernen (kernen@telia.com), November 09, 1999.