I have narrowed my favorites down to these two cameras due to the cost/feature ratio. Please give some ideas and/or feedback on the choic (lenses will be 70-200 2.8 and 28-70 2.8). Thanks!

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 14, 1999

Answers

The first two posters have given you as close to a correct answer as can be had. Check the features you are likely to use, and the ergonomics of the design. Don't forget to look at the system as a whole as Bob said. If you think you will need a feature or accessory that one has and the other doesn't, you will have your answer. I know which is the right camera for me, but no one can make the same decision for you. Both will give fine results, and both companies make fine lenses. Don't let anyone tell you anything different. If you are not going to need any accesories that are not available with one or the other, pick the one that feels best and has the most logical controls to you.

Posts that try to turn this into a Nikon/Canon flame war will be deleted!!!

-- Brad (bhutcheson@iname.com), April 15, 1999.

James,

According to every magazines I have readed, they are both excellent cameras. If you want my suggestion, I would try both and choose the one that feel better in my hand and suit my style the best.

Sorry for the boring answer but you can easely predict what comment you will get: all Nikon fans will vote for the F100 and the Canon guys for the EOS-3.

Good luck.

lp

-- Louis-Philippe Masse (phisa@generation.net), April 14, 1999.

It really doesn't matter much. Distrust anyone who says it does.

Try to figure out what features and lenses you will need in the future and see which SYSTEM meets your needs. It gets expensive to switch brands if you find you need something your initial choice doesn't have.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), April 14, 1999.

How about trying them out at a friendly photo shop? Make a list of what you like to do most with your camera before pressing the shutter. Perhaps it is switching from manual to auto modes, or adjusting compensations, or exposure lock, etc. While both of these excellent cameras can deliver all of the essential functions, perhaps one may seem to give you a better feel than the other.

-- Clarence Lau (cl0320@yahoo.com), April 15, 1999.

A small thing to take in consideration: have a look what brand your friends are using and try to evaluate their comments. Buying the same brand as your friends has some small advantages. You can learn to use your camera faster, problems are likely to get solved more directly. If you have a good relation with some good friends you can even borrow material for those one-time events. I'm thinking of multi flashlight, big telelenses, specific macro's, super wide-angles...

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), April 15, 1999.

I changed from Canon EOS to Nikon just to get the high-eyepoint viewfinder on the F4 (later I changed to F-90X, and maybe I will go for the F5 this year). Anyway, they (the Nikons!) all gave me far better control over the final image frames) than any of the Canons I have ever tried.

I always wear glasses....

-- (norman.kjfrvik@statkraft.no), April 15, 1999.

The EOS 1n is Canon's top-of-the-line model and the F100 is Nikon's next-to-the-top-of-the-line model, behind the F5.

So the 1n has some features that the F100 doesn't, especially 100% viewfinder and mirror lock up. The 1n may be a bit more durable.

(I'm a Nikon shooter, so how's that for being fair?)

The F100 has going for it the high eyepoint viewfinder, in fact one of Nikon's best, and vertical as well as horizontal focusing spots. It has newer AF technology and may be a touch faster.

But the major factor is, which one is going to make you want to go out and take pictures? That is going to be a factor of "feel" -- which body feels best in your hands and easiest and most natural to use.

So there is no substitute for giving 'em both a serious try. Rent or borrow if possible a sample of each and shoot a roll or two of film of the kinds of subjects you like to shoot with each.

Then you'll know.

-- John Wall (john_wall@ncsu.edu), April 15, 1999.

The EOS-1N is a very well built camera and will last you a long time but it is older technology so if you're not into having the latest and greatest it should do you fine plus with the advent of the EOS-3 the price is right plus rebates. The F100 is newer technology and appears to also be well built and long lasting. It would be a tough decision for almost anyone to decide. After you've figured out what you want to use the camera for and still can't decide then flip a coin, you'll win either way.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), April 15, 1999.

about "Anyway, they (the Nikons!) all gave me far better control over the final image frames) than any of the Canons I have ever tried"

what does that mean? what feature or control gives you that control? or are you just describing that you like the nikon interface better? because with cameras that expensive, i can't imagine one having less control then the other. maybe better AF, or easier to use options, or something minor, but missing options that affect control? i'd love to hear which one(s).

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 15, 1999.

Sean -- I think what Norman means is that because he can more easily see the entire frame with the high-eyepoint Nikon finders, he has better control of what ends up on the frame. I don't think he's implying what you think he's implying. Norman should correct me if my guess is wrong.

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), April 15, 1999.

oh. i think i DID assume wrong. sorry...

i guess the high eyepoint viewfinder thing makes sense, sort of... but doesn't the 1n have a 100% finder and the f100 have something less (97% maybe?) but i guess if you can't see around the whole 100% it won't do you any good. i'm lucky to not have to wear glasses, yet, so i'm not used to comparing cameras based on that issue.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 15, 1999.

James: The lack of mirror pre-lock with the F100 is a big drawback, IMO. What in the world was Nikon thinking of to introduce a high end body without this? (What was Canon thinking to introduce the EOS 3 at $1399.00 w/o viewfinder shutter and 100% viewfinder coverage? Maybe it is because they want dedicated amateurs and pro's to eventually opt for the 1n's successor, which will offer these 1n-like features. Who knows but Canon?, and they are not yet talking to us consumers) When Canon launched the EOS (electro-optical system) line about 10 years ago, they made a bold move by increasing the diameter of the lens mount. This was done to allow more room for electronic interfacing between lenses and camera, as well as for other sound and forward thinking reasons. I wonder if Nikon will eventually be forced to make a similar move. If so, current Nikon users will face the dilemma Canon FD users had to face 10 years ago, which is to trade in the old for the new. Canon stuck their collective neck out by doing this, and the gamble seems to have paid off. Thus, it may well be that the Canon EOS system is much better poised to meet future technological advances than the current Nikon system. IMO, Canon EOS lenses (especially the L series) are the deciding factor. The large diameter EOS lens-camera interface is big enough to accomodate the future. And, this line of 35 mm lenses is arguably the best and most innovative around. Canon innovated ultrasonic motor technology (and later sold it to Nikon...) as well as Image Stabilization technology (Nikon just recently applied for its own IS-like patents, I think), which is nothing short of revolutionary. Their tilt-shift lenses are yet another example of superb engineering. The EOS 28-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L lenses are regarded by many as the finest zooms around currently, rivaling many fixed focal length lenses in terms of sharpness, contrast and flexibility. The EOS 300/4 IS lens is nothing short of spectacular. Go to a major sporting or other event and behold all the white Canon EOS telephoto's lined up on pods with Canon bodies to match. In the arena of lenses, Nikon is clearly playing "catch up", IMO. With regard to camera bodies, Nikon may currently have the edge with the F5 and its advanced metering technology, but Canon's 1n, EOS 3 and A2 are solid performers that offer something Nikon lacks, which is compatability with the full line of EOS lenses. Look for Canon to introduce a successor to the 1n in the near future. While I agree that both Canon and Nikon offer excellent systems, I believe that Canon is a wiser investment, and by stating this I am giving you an answer/opinion that you requested in your posting. To answer your question by ambiguously saying that both systems are just dandy and basically the same, but..., "hey, you figure it out for yourself..." Well, that may not be very helpful to you as you prepare to let go of some major cash.

It isn't that we are unwilling to suggest which camera we think is best. It is the simple fact that you can't make a decision like that for someone else. Even if we had more facts about usage, etc, there are other factors too. Personally, Nikon's user interface makes thier cameras about as usful as a door stop for taking pictures, for me. There are other people who feel the viewfinder is so much better that they can't use anything else (I couldn't tell that much difference between my Elan IIe and an N70, but some people can). Others are as uncomfortable with Canon ergonomics (which I think are great) as I am Nikon's UI. There really are too many intangibles to recomend a SYSTEM to someone over the internet. If he already had a system and was in need of a new camera for it, it would be a little easier, but there are even variables there....

Brad

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), April 15, 1999.

Kurt, the larger mount diameter lens mount does allow Canon to produce some f 1.0 lens versus Nikon who seems to max out at f 1.2 Nikon doesn't seem to be running out of space for electrical contacts. In fact Nikon seems to be able to extract and record (either in RAM or on the film) a whole bunch more information about the lens in use. Also, in all the sources I have found, Nikon denies buying their silent-wave technology from anyone (either from Canon or anyone else). If you've got info on this I'd love to see it.

While Nikon and Canon do have their own differet strenghts and weaknesses, I DO agree with Brad and the others that user interface and "feel" is much more important than specs for general shooting. If you can't hold the camera and reach the buttons you need to, the little differences won't matter.

While you can't buy Nikkor tilt shift lenses anywhere (and you can't buy 6 mm f 2.8 fisheyes or 1200-1700 mm zooms from Canon), unless you need to shoot with "specialty" lenses all the time you can probably survive with renting them (and the necessary SLR body) when you need them.

--Jeff

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), April 16, 1999.

FWIW, I was told by Jack Kimbler (Canon tech. rep.) last year that Canon had sold its ultrasonic motor technology to Nikon. James' question asks for feedback and advice on his purchasing decision (Nikon F100 vs. EOS 1n), did he not? I replied that my vote goes to Canon. Brad: By offering my opinion with regard to James' question, how am I making the decision for him? I'm quite certain that James is capable of weighing the evidence to arrive at his own decisions. Many of us are carrying around camera bags filled with thousands of dollars of photographic gear, and many of us know well the experience of being approached by interested bystanders and asked about our gear. And so I ask you (and this is really what James is asking): Why did YOU choose Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Contax, or whatever? Are you happy with your choice, and if so, WHY? If not, why not? Or do you (perhaps secretly) regret your choice and wish you had INVESTED differently? Would you admit it? Would you offer the curious bystander the benefit of your hard-won experience and candid advice as a consumer of this expensive gear? If you have regrets, are you sticking with your choice because you feel you're in to deep to change horses midstream? (I know a couple of folks in this latter situation). Food for thought.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), April 16, 1999.

I have NEVER entered one of these CANON v NIKON arguments, but here goes with my five cents worth.

I have an EOS1n and 35-350 zoom, and an Nikon f4s and 500m f4. I use the two cameras together for lots of wildlife work. The Canon is lovely to use, quick and intuitive. The 35-350 lens has been slated and well-rubbished in various photosites and reviews, but I have had more images published from this lens than any other I have owned. My clients love the results, my picture agents love the results. What more can a boy ask? The Nikon F4s is one of the best handling cameras I have ever used. Why? Because ALL the controls are reachable with the fingers of my right hand. I can hit the frame-rate switch, meter pattern, shutter speed, etc etc all with my right hand.....which means I dont have to take my left hand off the focus ring, which you have to do with F90 and the Canons. That has gained me several shots I would otherwise have lost.

So what point am I making? ALL cameras have good points and bad points, and all the advice you will get here will reflect personal preferences. The bottom line is - any pro camera you chose will be a stunningly sophisticated bit of kit that will do most anything you ask of it. It is HOW it does it that will be the deciding factor for YOU, and for the work you do. So good luck with your dec

-- (John.MacPherson@btinternet.com), April 19, 1999.

To Sean and Russ (both 15. april):

You are right, Russ - I tried (but maybe failed!) to say that the view-finder (at least for eye-glass-wearers) is far better on Nikon (F4, F90X and F5) than on any of the Canon EOS-cameras I have ever tried.

With the Nikons it's quite easy to see the corners and the outer limits of the image in the finder, and by that carefully decide the final composition. When the slides after some days return from the lab, you will have no big surprise by finding unexpected objects at the edge of the image.

Also the (almost) 100% coverage is helpful, but for glass-wearers the high-eyepoint is more important.

-- (Norman.Kjfrvik@Statkraft.no), April 22, 1999.

Hmmmm..... EOS1n vs. F100??? I don't think it is fair to compare Canon's top of the line body to Nikon's #2 body. EOS3 vs. F100 would be better. Or EOS1n vs F5. Otherwise why not compare the new Rebel 2000 against the F5?

-- Stanley McManus (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), April 22, 1999.

One should only compare what he can buy with the same amount of money. The EOS-1n is quite a bit cheaper than the F100 and so are the 28-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L lenses compared to their new Nikon counterparts. If one puts in the price of the teleconverters you can see that the Canon system can be had for almost $1000 cheaper, for the current US market stuff with the running rebates. This price difference is too large for anybody to go with the Nikon outfit if he's starting out. The AF-S lenses are still overpriced and one can find a lot of uses for the money he can save by going with Canon for the setup that James has in mind.

-- Costas Dimitropoulos (costas@udel.edu), April 22, 1999.

The comparison is quite valid (1) because those are the two that have the features I want, (2) they are quite similar in ruggedness, 5 point autofocus system, fps, metering, etc.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 22, 1999.

I am a little confused now. Does the price difference matter to you?

-- Costas Dimitropoulos (costas@udel.edu), April 22, 1999.

Costas...

Well, to some extent yes, but between these two cameras, the difference is reconcilable. If it were the 1n and the F5, then it would be a different story. As I mentioned originally, the cost/feature ratio seemed to raise these two cameras to the top, although the Maxxum 9 confuses things slightly. I am set on the glass I want, but a bit stuck on which body to go into. I love the ergonomics of the EOS system, but Nikon's flash system and viewfinders are great for my less than stellar eyesight. I have never gotten ahold of a 1n, but have messed around with the F100 and was very impressed. Likewise, I don't know if I'll ever actually hold a Maxxum 9 unless I bought one, as I live in a very small market area. Hence, I appealed to the masses for the intangibles of the various models, so as to help my relatively blind decision. Also, I have only been able to view Philip's review of the 1n and Pop photo's review, leaving a bit to be desired in the research column. Nonetheless, the responses have been very helpful.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 22, 1999.

James:

In this case, you should simply try to check out the EOS-1n in a store and get the camera that feels the best and you are more comfortable in using. You don't really have a difficult problem in your hands. Shoot one roll in each camera and get the one you like the best.

-- Costas Dimitropoulos (costas@udel.edu), April 23, 1999.

stanley, i can't believe you actually think cameras should be compared basen on product lineup rather then price/featuers. the 1n and the f100 are pretty similar in price and features. why would you copmpare either to the the double the price F5? just because the F5 is the most expensive nikon and the 1n is the most expensive canon?

that means if i'm car shopping i can't compare the nissam maxima (pretty much the most expensive nissan 4 door sedan) to the lexus gs300 (a car pretty similar in size/price/features to the maxima) or the BMW 323i (similar again) because those are the lower end lexus and BMW. obviously i need to comapre the maxima to the LS400 and 750i since then i'd be comapraing everone's most expensive entry. (even though the LS400 and 750i cost 2-3 TIMES as much as a maxima) i think not.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), April 26, 1999.

Well I guess this thread is REALLY old by now but I would like to add my 2 cents for anyone who reads through this stuff trying to make a similar decision.

I think the decision of which camera to buy should NEVER be a Nikon vs Canon thing. Camera's come and go but the lenses you buy are more likely to be your most expensive decisions. That's where I would make MY decision. As an example, I currently am a Nikon user but at this point I have a very small system... only 2 lenses. Well I'm trying to decide now whether or not to switch to Canon. The reasons: looking at the prices of good quality lenses, it does seem that Canon's choices are cheaper. I'm one of those people who would prefer to buy a name brand lens over a cheap non-brand name lens. It's a comfort level issue. Also, I'm a little concerned that Nikon will indeed change their mount. Call it a perception but it does seem like there is more Canon equipment showing up in the hands of photojournalists and sports photographers. That's where Nikon's real money lies and they'll have to respond sooner or later to the trend, which you do see in the AF-S technology. I guess being that they're using the old mount for AF-S and also on the F5, maybe that's reason to believe they won't change. Anyway, basically it's all a crapshoot and one must eventually put your money down and do something. I would like to agree with the post that defended their stating their own opinions. I like to read why people chose what they did and why they didn't like the alternative. I'm certainly able to filter the information according to my own needs and desires. Those who posted replies of 'go which one feels best' or 'you will not make a mistake whichever one you choose' really doesn't help. The things that I might think are worthwhile may not really matter once I get more experienced. So PLEASE, put down your opinions, flame Nikon, flame Canon... I'll figure out the stuff that matters. Anyone who can't is going to be misled by someone else sooner or later anyway.

Phew, I'd say that was a lot more than 2c worth... :-)

-- Pentz (pentz@inetnow.net), June 29, 1999.

Pentz, your statement is based purely on speculation. Choosing another brand just 'in case of' is a very expensive joke. What if Canon changes their whole system? We all know that Nikon is not a fast innovator. What we do know, is that after 40 years Nikon is still faithful towards their public. I do think that all the sportjournalists represent only a small percentage in the sales figures of a brand; but they are great for publicity.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), June 30, 1999.

Hey James,

I just bought a used EOS 3, with the PB-1E power booster. I have an EOS 650, Canon A-1 and a Nikon F70D. Well, let me tell you, the EOS 3 is a really complicated(sophisticated?) piece of camera equipment. Far too many features for me to take advantage of right now. Learning how to use it is going to be quite an endeavour. Gone for me are the days of turning a few knobs and twisting a few aperture rings. I just want to warn you, if you are not ready or willing to put in ample time learning how to use one of these high end techobeasts don't even bother. It will take all the fun out of taking pictures. Also worrying about rain, dust, butter hands, etc. take their toll too. On that note, the F100 seems to me to be a little sturdier and may raise the confidence level of the user to put it into more hazardous situations where you sometimes need to put your camera. Hope that helps, Let us all know your fianl decision and how it works out for you. Cheers, Dave

-- Nagoya Dave (nagoydave@yahoo.com), May 01, 2001.

Here's a bit of experience for all you guys. My first AF system was a Canon EOS650 with the original EF35-70mm and EF70-210mm lenses. At first, I was amazed at its focusing speed. I loved its viewfinder. The displays and info simply superb. Sure was faster than my Nikon- wielding friends, usually with F-801x(N8008s) and F-501(N2020) models. However, the images didn't come out exactly the way I wanted them. Subject not as sharp and were usually over-exposed. The weak link was the shutter. The O-ring in the shutter melted and eventually stuck up the shutter. I had it repaired but the images it produced never got better. I finally sold the 650 and got the new (at that time) EOS-5 (a.k.a. EOS-A2E). It's got the most advanced AF SLR then and seemd to have all the features I wanted, like 5- frame/sec advance, the widest AF frame coverage, film leader out rewind, super fast focusing, eye-controlled focusing, etc... features found only in the most expensive pro SLR's- it was like a dreamboat! My nightmares started when the first pictures came out of the lab. The focus was way off. Exposure was ok but the subject was fuzzy. Really disappointing. I tried switching off the eye-control thing and later stopped using the other focusing points. It somehow worked to use just the center---but only a little. The pictures still didn't come out as sharp as my old Canon AE-1 Program with Vivitar lenses. I kinda tried to stick with it, since it was supposedly the hottest camera around. All my friends actually envied me and my "dream system". But the truth was, every time I enter the photo lab to claim my pictures, I get the creeps on how the pictures are are gonna come out. Although experience and time kinda improved the output, my confidence and trust in the system still wasn't there. The last straw was when the dial on the left broke. The camera was just over a year old then, and took care of it like a baby, turning it on and off so gently and slowly.... and suddenly the dial snaps!!! Really disheartening. The moment I got the camera from the Canon shop I sold it immediately to an officemate. I decided to switch to Nikons, since I really liked the photos I got with my Dad's old Nikon FG. I got a Nikon F90X (a.k.a. N90S) and Nikon AF35-70 f3.3-4.5 and a Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 ED. I never really liked the F-90X but it was the most advanced NIkon at that time. To this day, I had not a single problem with it and the images I made with the Nikon are definitely sharper focused and properly exposed than the Canon's. I just can't tell why. I got the same lens focal lengths and price range. I still say that the A2E focuses faster than the F90X but I guess the issue is whether the final image comes out the way you like. I bought a used F4S as back-up. My friends say its a backward step, but I don't mind. My present system more reliable, sturdy, and it gets results. I'm still obsessed with the new EOS-1V though....!!!!!

Jonathan

-- jon salazar (aria_pro@usa.net), June 20, 2001.

The thing i constantly see developing always ends in techno babble....i myself catch myself in it, but the most important thing in photography is the visual communication with the viewer. Ponder this...in 5 to 10 years will you be still loving photography because of your love in the essence of it, or shallow electri-laser top it off mega feature camera doin everythin for ya that has chinkity plasticy modern market cost cuttin lenses that you will trade in 6 months for the next toy? Well thats an ego question in my eyes...in my opinion find the best lenses you can afford and try a used mechanical body....i mean if you really want quality look how long the mechanicals have been around. I will expect to get busted for this reply but with facts present through photography its the lense that makes the sharp picture, not the lightbox. For the price it seems you are interested in and features (SOME WHAT MODERN) i would suggest a contax RX with Ziess lenses but if you want auto focus completly disregard all i have stated. If so these two models (f100- 1n) are fine, i just wanted to give an alternative. enjoy it all whatever ya choose ryan

-- ryan martin (rsmiom@aol.com), October 19, 2001.