Thinking of a Canon Eos film camera but need help

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Some may say I'm beyond help, but here goes.

I have three gorgeous Zeiss Lenses in the Rollei QBM mount (35mm Distagon, 50mm 1.8 Planar and 85mm Sonnar), which I currently shoot with a Rolleiflex SL35. The metering in that is dead, and I prefer metered shooting with an SLR. So they rarely get used.

The QBM lenses can be converted to an EOS mount, which I think is probably sensible to do, but as a lifelong Nikon shooter I have no knowledge of the Canon EOS film range and wonder if people have a recommendation for an EOS film body which is reliable, not too big or heavy and reasonably inexpensive, plus able to focus manually easily via the viewfinder.

Help gratefully sought!

 

[telenous]

There's only one [edit: small/cheap] Canon camera with traditional split prism viewfinder for strictly manual use of EF (and adapted) lenses, the Canon EF-M. It's about the size of the EOS 1000 (i.e. rather small-ish for an EOS). They are not the most frequent cameras to find but they come up from time to time. All other EOS cameras have viewfinders optimized for AF, so, not easy to work with manual lenses. Bearing that in mind, right now I'd look for a clean EOS 30/30v (7/7n in the US, I think) as it's one of the latest film EOS bodies and it's not too big. I have one and the only fault I find is hunting AF in very low light (other EOS bodies are better for that) but that's not going to be a problem with manual lenses.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I find the RT is an interesting and almost unique model. Lighter than the 1-NRS which I wouldn't mind in some ways but given I almost never use my current EOS models, anyway, it seems redundant to consider one. I suppose there's a certain masochistic appeal in the thought of ripping through a 36 exposure roll in less than four seconds, I think I'd like to do that just once.

Of course the pellicle mirror models do sacrifice 2/3 stop of light to the film so for low light work (Eg.gigs) they're not the ultimate model, and the finders, whilst blocks (not streets, blocks) ahead of the original Pellix, are marginally dimmer than models with a conventional mirror.

For light and reasonably inexpensive something like a 3000, 3000N and so on is very hard to beat. They have pretty good meteringfor what they are but personally the plastic lens mount was always a real turn off. But models such as the EOS 600/630 (the model the RT was based on, which uses a conventional mirror), its predecessor the 620 which has a 1/4000 shutter & 1/250 sync or an EOS-1 for still reasonable money are all cameras with a lot of abiity and solid build.

These early models all have a lot going for them but you do need to watch the curtains for signs of black goo from deteriorated shutter bumpers. Can be cleaned off at home quite effectively but if left unchecked, eventually shutter accuracy will go AWOL. Plenty of info about it on the web.
Cheers
Brett

 

[JP Owens]

The EOS 1N with the Ec-B screen would give you a matte screen with microprism and split image. I used a couple of them in the early 1990's and they are solid cameras. Not so lightweight, but a great camera.

 

[telenous]

Interesting. I'd forgotten about the EOS 1N w/ the split screen. (I edited my post above.)

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Thank you very much - several choices to be found that should make life easier.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/5-AF-Confi...167125?hash=item1edce75595:g:emsAAOSw8d9Uv5kk

EOS focus confirmation chips.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Thanks Ko.Fe - that gives another useful tool!

Apart from the top professional ones all the EOS seem to be inexpensive, very similar to the Nikon AF cameras. A good thing, but shows the bias towards manual cameras in todays market.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Have a look at the Canon EOS 3. I bought mine new many moons ago. A great 35mm AF camera. Still available on ebay for $ 200/300. A review here: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/film-bodies/eos-3.htm

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks Ko.Fe - that gives another useful tool!

Apart from the top professional ones all the EOS seem to be inexpensive, very similar to the Nikon AF cameras. A good thing, but shows the bias towards manual cameras in todays market.

Few years ago I purchased EOS3 for slightly above 200$, mint.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...0.XCanon+EOS+3.TRS1&_nkw=Canon+EOS+3&_sacat=0


The only negative part of EOS AF system is batteries. Some of them are not sold in regular stores anymore and they are not cheap.

Great part, EOS AF lenses are not expensive.

Past summer I purchased 22-55 EF for 90CAD. With working Elan IIE attached to it.
Lens works fine even on digital cameras.
But camera batteries are something like 20$ each. And they were only available online.

 

[Out to Lunch]

The EOS 3 takes a lithium 2CR5 battery. $9,99 on BHPhoto.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Not greatly expensive.

I'm hopeful if I'm not using AF I might get decent life out of one.

Right, now off on the hunt.

 

[iamzip]

A couple of things worth noting:
The Canon EF-M shares its name with the lens mount for the newer canon digital cameras, so that can be a bit confusing / frustrating. It was also technically never branded as an EOS camera, due to its inexpensive manual focus nature. And also, like many other cameras of the era, it takes photo batteries which may not be the easiest to find.

EDIT: If you are interested in flash photography, this does not support the Canon TTL standard of the time, but had its own dedicated flash unit, which is not the easiest to find.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Thanks - in all honesty I use flash about once in a blue moon, so it would not be an issue.

I'd noted the lens confusion too, but searching is relatively straightforward on ebay if one excludes new lenses.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I have the flash for the EOS 3 and I remember I paid a lot of money for it.

 

[Steve M.]

You might want to delve into researching how the camera will meter w/ a non EOS lens that lacks the electrical contacts (unless your adapters have that). I explored this issue years ago and remember that some EOS film cameras would not meter accurately w/ manual focus, non chipped lenses. That was a long time ago though, so maybe there's been some changes since then w/ adapters.

Here's some interesting info on EOS film bodies below.

http://www.everyothershot.com/a-hipsters-guide-to-eos-film-cameras/

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Thanks Steve - very useful advice and great link!

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

An extremely wet walk to the local camera shop revealed a cabinet of inexpensive EOS film cameras. Russell, the owner, like me a Nikon shooter let me just play away. Once I twigged that using the zoom was the reason images weren't coming in to focus, I was very impressed with the EOS650 he had - nice bright viewfinder which made focus very straightforward. Plus good size in the hand, not heavy and inexpensive complete with 35-70 kit zoom. So bought that as an inexpensive way to try it all out.

Now to explore the adapters.

 

[Fraser]

An extremely wet walk to the local camera shop revealed a cabinet of inexpensive EOS film cameras. Russell, the owner, like me a Nikon shooter let me just play away. Once I twigged that using the zoom was the reason images weren't coming in to focus, I was very impressed with the EOS650 he had - nice bright viewfinder which made focus very straightforward. Plus good size in the hand, not heavy and inexpensive complete with 35-70 kit zoom. So bought that as an inexpensive way to try it all out.

Now to explore the adapters.

just make sure no stickiness dark areas on the shutter as they are awful for failing shutters caused by foam bumpers breaking down and turning into stick goo. What makes it worse is the shutter sounds like its still working. On a positive note I have several 600s, 630s and 650s and I think they are great and super cheap!
Enjoy!!!!

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Thanks Fraser, I've checked the shutter blades and it's clear but he has a spare one (and a good reputation for fixing things if required) so I'll monitor it carefully.