A bit late and probably no longer of current interest but I had an opportunity to try out a Canon Elan II kit, made available to me by a coworker. I had use of the kit for a weekend; so do not expect this to be a full blown and exhaustive review of the Elan II. Given that the Elan 7 has replaced the Elan II, I was not going to try to explain every nuance of the II's operation and obviously, time would not permit me that luxury. I am of the opinion that it takes a long time to understand the capabilities and features of a kit in a variety of shooting conditions, typically six or more months at least. Therefore, two and a half days was barely scratching the surface.
The kit consisted of the Elan II with the BP 50 accessory battery pack, the EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens, the EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens (discontinued) and the EZ 540 flash. I can only offer a cursory look at the Elan II's operation and for comparison purposes; I borrowed my brother-in-law';
Nikon F70, which use to belong to me so it was like visiting an old friend. Although not appropriate to compare a $700 camera to one costing $2000 (Canadian) I did compare certain aspects of the Elan's offerings and performance to myNikon F100
My real intention for trying out the kit was to finally experience what Canon had to offer from a relatively recent body with some USM lenses and see if the technology was really all that it is cracked up to be and wonder if my current pangs of desire for a full blown Canon kit is warranted. It was a good experience and my comments below will add a bit more fodder to the Nikon versus Canon war raging among the brand loyalists.
The Elan II seems to be made of mostly plastic but there are sections of the camera that are actually metal. The flat-silver finish sections are the metal portions and these include the top deck and the surrounding section of the lens mount. The rest of the camera is made of black color plastic with a faux leather grain texture to assist in gripping the camera.
The generous amount of plastic contributes to the very lightweight feel of the Elan II and even compared to the Nikon F70, which was one of Nikon’s lightweights during the mid to late 1990s, the Elan II is still devoid of reassuring heft. When the BP 50 is attached, the combination then weighs about the same as the Nikon F70. The predominantly metal F100 without the MB15 is probably a full pound heavier than the Elan II.
Despite the lightweight and rather cheesy feel of the faux-leather plastic, the Elan II appears to be well constructed. The F70 is wholly plastic for the exterior shell but has a metal skeletal structure and also has the benefit of a thin rubber cover over the plastic for a slightly better grip. It is subjective but the F70 does feel more solid in the hand.
The BP 50 on the other hand feels like a cheap piece of junk with a wholly unsatisfactory feel to it. The exterior cover of the Elan II is of a hardened plastic that feels quite durable; the BP 50 is made of the same type of plastic but it just does not provide the same level of confidence. It is also a bad design, as it requires the user to remove it from the camera to change batteries.
The BP 50 has a shutter release button for portrait shots but lacks a secondary command dial that allows the user to maintain full control of exposure, as would be the case when the camera is held in landscape mode. Additionally the BP 50 lacks a button to start AF or lock exposure values as the more advanced Canon battery packs do.
In short, Canon seemed to pigeon hole the Elan II/BP 50 user as one who would not require the better convenience and control features of the more expensive cameras and battery packs. Fair enough, I suppose given the target price and market for the Elan series of bodies. The BP 50 was not particularly expensive and nor should it given its quality. In my write up of Nikon’s MB15 for the F100 body, I complained that its construction and quality was not in keeping with a camera as well built as the F100. However, the MB15 is downright luxurious compared to the BP 50.
Handling
The Elan II is very comfortable to hold and grip thanks to its excellent right hand grip. The F70 is not bad to hold but the contours of the Elan II are superior, much like the F100’s grip. As much as I complained about the BP 50 grip I would prefer to have it than not as it provides extra stability in holding and handling the camera. It would have been nice if Nikon made a vertical grip for the F70 so that users with larger hands could get a better hold of it. Nikon addressed this shortcoming with the F80 and MB16 grip but apparently, the MB16 is even worse off for features than the BP 50 with no vertical shutter release or any other controls. It is simply a battery holder and nothing else. Nikon giveth and Nikon taketh away.
Much has been made about the ergonomics of the Nikon F70 especially when compared to the Elan II. I cut my photographic teeth with the F70 and thought that if you could master this camera you could master anything out there. That is being a bit arrogant on my part because we have to look at camera ergonomics from two perspectives.
If you are a new photographer with little in the way of photographic basics, it will not matter one whit how award winning a design a given camera body has because it will still be foreign territory. You want simple ergonomics than get a Nikon FM2. That is as simple and as uncluttered as it gets but give it to a new photographer and that person still will not be able to use it effectively. In order to appreciate the ergonomic design of a camera body you must be knowledgeable about all the features provided.
Once you have that knowledge then the camera body design plays an important part of your system. It is at this level that quick and easy access to controls and features is valued and at this level, the Elan II is certainly superior to the Nikon F70 but in comparison to other advanced bodies, less so and perhaps not at all.
The Elan II vs the Nikon F70
The Elan II is of the era when control dials began to come into vogue over the push button era that preceded it. The F70…well, to an engineer it must have seemed very logical in theory but in practice the accessing of the controls and features is not as quick and easy as the Elan II.
I personally do not care for dials all that much but that is due to being a user of the F90x and F100 style bodies and controls. These two bodies will seem more cluttered than the Elan II but I find them superior for accessing the controls I want. My coworker who loaned me the Elan for review remarked at the number of buttons and controls on my F100 when I showed it to him. He also remarked what a loud camera it was for focusing. Ouch!
The point is that when you are use to a particular body or system then trying out other brands and their set way of doing things will be awkward. However, once you use the other system on a regular basis then you will learn the strengths and weaknesses and be able to work around them just as you would have for the first system. So just because I state that the Elan II seems not as good as the F100’s design and layout, that is more an indication of my familiarity of the Nikon way of doing things. Note also that since the demise of the F70, Nikon has adopted the F100 design for the consumer F80 and F65 bodies. Finally, a system approach to doing things from Nikon.
Noise Levels
The Elan II has a much ballyhooed Whisper Drive transport for which the main feature is a belt driven motor to reduce noise levels. The Elan II brochure even criticizes other cameras for the loud KA-CHUNK and whirring noises they make when taking an exposure.
 |
| Elan IIe with White Lens |
The Elan II is not loud but neither is it particularly quiet. I thought the shutter and mirror slap noise was still quite jarring when I compared it to the F70. I found to my surprise that the F70 is actually quieter than the Elan II. The F100 is even better damped and smoother sounding than the F70 so all I can say is that I was unimpressed with Canon's marketing claims and the reality of the noise levels.
Canon made the film transport super accurate so that a roll wound mid way through can be loaded up in another EOS body and not lose one frame at all due to sloppy film winding. It does mean that a roll of 24 or 36-exposure film will be exactly 24 or 36 exposures whereas my F100 has always given me 25 or 37 exposures per roll. The F70 gave 25 and 37 exposures about 75 percent of the time and the F90x about 50 percent of the time. If you love switching films mid way through, Canon has your ticket to ride but then again you would not lose a frame with a recent Nikon body either.
The Elan II is much quieter than either the F70 or the F100 when rewinding the roll of film though but a bit slow. Incidentally, the Elan 7 is supposed to be even quieter and smoother than the Elan II and I did a brief comparison of the Elan 7 to the F80 and found both were equally quiet and well damped for shutter and mirror slap. The new Minolta 7 in comparison was quite jarring and reminded me of my old F90x.
Autofocus noise was obviously in the Elan’s favor for which I will have more to say about in the Autofocus section of this report.
Viewfinder
The viewfinder of the Elan II seems as bright as any other autofocus camera on the market. I was not paying particular attention to high eye point conveniences, as I do not wear glasses but the viewfinder seemed adequate for me to look through.
 |
| View Finder |
The viewfinder display though is not as bright and easy to read as Nikon displays. The old style Nikon displays of the F70 and F90x era use black type over a lime green LCD screen, which is very easy to read. The F100 reverses this and uses lime green type over a black LCD screen and subjectively it does not seem as easy to read as the older style displays but it is still better than the Canon displays of lime green type over a dark green LCD screen. Not enough contrast between the colors used.
Canon viewfinders have a generous rubber buffer for the user’s head to rest against. Much nicer than the hard rubber or plastic rings that Nikon has for their viewfinder displays. I have to use an accessory rubber cup to get a comfortable resting area for my F100 but once in place this rubber cup provides a better buffer than the stock Canon eyecup. Canon does have accessory eyecups for their cameras too and I would definitely go with one if I were a Canon user.
Canon made a big splash with its selectable focus points some years back. Since I am not overly familiar with EOS history, I do not know which body introduced it, perhaps the original EOS 1. The better EOS bodies have five focus points laterally arranged and it was highly regarded among professionals for the ability to change focus points very quickly instead of doing the Nikon style “lock and compose” dance. That is, use the central and only focus point to lock focus and exposure if required then recompose the scene.
The Elan II only has three focus points laterally arrayed but they are far enough apart to be useful. I suggest you read the Elan II brochure to figure out which points are the most sensitive as I did not stray from using the central focus point too much in my time with the Elan kit.
With my own F100, I use the central and most accurate focus point almost 90 percent of the time because it is inconvenient for me to use the AF pad on the camera back. I am left eye dominant due to a bum right eye so for me to use the AF pad means poking my right eye with my thumb or moving the camera away from my head. I have been doing the Nikon lock and compose long enough that I am quite fast at getting the subject focused and locked and then recomposing. It is much faster than it actually reads.
With this though in mind the Canon method of selecting the focus points on the Elan II is actually more convenient than the F100 and its five-point array as chosen by the rear AF pad. The Elan II has a separate button right at the top right, rear corner of the body and pressing this button with your thumb and then turning the command dial with your index finger scrolls through the three focus points. No more poking my right eye out with my thumb, bonus.
It seems Canon did away with this arrangement with the Elan 7 by ripping off Nikon’s AF pad and placing it within the rear command dial. Hmmm…looks like an eye-poking situation again, bummer. I suppose I should add that Canon’s present 23 or 24 percent focusing area (in the Elan 7, EOS 3 and EOS 1v) covers a much wider area than any Nikon camera. Good, now let’s hurry up and get to 100 percent coverage but not with a million AF points. Do 100 percent coverage judiciously and if Canon can develop Eye Control Focus with better accuracy, this would be the ultimate focus control system.
Exposure
The Elan II has three metering modes of Evaluative, Centre Weighted and Partial Area metering that isolate a 9.5 percent spot in the viewfinder. I came across a newsgroup post some years back in which a Canon user was dismissive of the Elan II for its lower tolerances with regard to metering accuracy via a vis the Canon A2. I did a brief test of the metering modes, compared them to the Nikon F70 and F100, and referenced to the Sekonic 508 handheld meter.
I placed a Kodak 8x10 inch gray card about 15 feet away from myself in my front yard during an overcast day. I used ISO 100 and an aperture of f8 as reference values for comparison purposes. The Sekonic 508 in incident mode provided me with a shutter speed of 1/125 for the f8 and ISO 100 values (exactly f8 and 1/125 as the Sekonic can provide aperture values in 1/10 stop increments). The Sekonic in Spot Meter mode (1 degree spot zoom) provided f8 and 1/3 at 1/125. I used 80-200mm (70-210mm) zoom lenses on the cameras so that I could easily zoom in and isolate the card as well as take a wider reading.
All the cameras provided bang on exposure values in all metering modes that was the same as the Sekonic in incident mode when all or most of the gray card was seen in the viewfinder. So it would seem the meter of the Elan II is accurate enough when a middle gray value is used for a meter reading. I forgot to compare the Evaluative and Matrix meter during this session and later went out again when the light conditions had changed a bit and simply metered a general scene.
The same 80-200mm (70-210mm) lenses were used at 200mm (210mm) and the,
- F100 gave 1/90 @ f8 in Matrix meter mode,
- F70 gave 1/80 @ f8 in Matrix meter mode,
- Elan II gave 1/125 @ f8 in Evaluative meter mode,
- Sekonic 508 in 5-degree Spot mode (to provide as similar a view as the cameras) gave 1/60 @ f8 and ½, which translates to f8 and 1/90.
It would seem that the Elan II is not quite as accurate in Evaluative metering mode as the Nikon Matrix meter vis a vis the Sekonic 508. If the difference was small, it would not concern me but in this very brief and simple test, the underexposure is by half a stop, enough to provide some concern. Incidentally, the person who complained about the Elan II metering did some research into the tolerances and found that Canon accepted a half stop variance in exposure values for the Elan II but would only allow one-third stop variances for the A2 bodies. A bit of care is required when using the Elan II in Evaluative Metering mode without benefit of a middle gray area to read off of but then again if you are going to be using middle tones then you may as well use Center or Partial Spot metering.
Just keep in mind that my test was brief and hardly scientific but then neither have I tens of thousands of dollars worth of diagnostic equipment (just a $20 gray card) nor the time to try out the camera in every complex metering situation. The Vancouver weather was crappy over the weekend I had the camera and I did what I could with what I had.
Canon Flash
All Canon Speedlite Flash should be able to be mounted on this camera
 |
| Speedlite Series Flashes |
I did not test out the flash capabilities of the Elan II much at all despite having the monster size 540EZ flash to use. I did a few cursory shots with it but given my lack of familiarity with Canon flash and the limited amount of time I had with the kit I did not see much point in trying to examine every aspect of A-TTL and E-TTL. I offer only a few comparison comments regarding Canon flash and Nikon flash procedures.
Nikon flash sets a default 1/60 of a second shutter speed during low ambient conditions when the camera is set to Program Auto or Aperture Priority modes. It is a nice compromise and workaround for the problem of having a fast enough shutter speed to combat handshake as well as tiny movements in static human subjects (muscles twitch and people sway no matter how still the subject tries to be). For normal range focal lengths, 1/60 is not a problem but when using longer lenses such as the 80-200mm f2.8 lenses then very good technique must be used to obtain a sharp image at 1/60.
With my own 80-200mm lens I often set the camera to Manual mode and select a faster speed in the 1/180 to 1/250 range to ensure a sharp image when handholding for a flash exposure. Wide-angle lenses also present an opportunity to work with slower than 1/60 shutter speeds and I will work in Manual mode with such lenses. These are about the only times I work out of Aperture Priority mode for general flash snapshots because I have come to appreciate having the flash and camera work together to avoid blurred images. Note though you are not stuck with 1/60 when using Nikon flash. As the ambient light increases so too does your shutter speed to correspond to the extra amount of light being metered by the camera.
I’ve been working with Nikon flash since 1997 so it is quite familiar but trying out the Elan II in Aperture Priority mode with the flash on meant paying attention to what the shutter was set to for the ambient light conditions. The Elan II also has a 1/60 default slowest speed but only when the camera is set to Program mode. You are otherwise left on your own for ensuring the shutter speed is fast enough to avoid handshake with the chosen lens when working in Aperture, Shutter or Manual modes.
It is a different way of doing things but I would not say it is a worse way of doing things, perhaps even better. It makes you aware of the ambient light conditions all the time and makes you understand that flash and ambient light metering are two different beasts.
Flash is one aspect of Canon’s photographic technology that has not been lauded as their USM and IS have been. Not until the advent of the EX series of flash to work with their E-TTL flash metering. Before E-TTL and the EX flashes Canon had A-TTL and the EZ flashes and even a few Canon users regarded it as little better than plane vanilla TTL flash. Now Popular Photography Magazine gushes that Canon’s E-TTL and EX flashes are the best available. Perhaps but I wouldn’t know because as I mentioned earlier I just didn’t have the time or the multitudes of film rolls to test it out thoroughly, but I would love to do so in the future.
What little I did try revealed that Nikon’s D capable lenses with the SB28 flash provided better flash exposure for centered and off centered subjects than Canon’s A-TTL and 540EZ flash. Nikon’s D feature allows the user to lock in the distance of the subject first before recomposing. Since flash is all about Aperture and distance, locking in the distance of the subject makes imminent sense. Otherwise, as you recompose with an off centered subject the Canon A-TTL flash reads past the subject and throws a blast for the background instead of the subject. It would be interesting to compare E-TTL with Nikon’s 3D flash technology as it now appears that Canon has incorporated monitor pre flashes as well as some distance detection in their E-TTL and EX series flashes.
No matter though because whatever system you’ve bought into, you’ll eventually come to know the good and the bad of it and be able to work around the weak points. When shooting general shots in regular landscape mode I often use 45degree bounce with the SB 28’s built in white bounce card. I like the illumination that this modification creates and it helps to avoid the “caught in the headlights” look of subjects in darker ambient light conditions.
Direct flash no matter from which company, is a bad thing and to get around it you need to spread the light away from the point source that is the flash head. You can bounce the light with the flash head but the best illumination is umbrella bounce but of course, that is not a practical and portable method of use.
Autofocus
This was what I looked forward to the most when I received the Elan II kit for a tryout. Ultra Sonic Motors (USM) in the lenses is probably the best photographic technology since autofocus was introduced in the mid 1980s. The consensus about USM would be that it,
- Offers superior autofocus speed over the screw-driven method as used by Nikon and other companies in most of their lenses
- Greater control and efficiency in “hitting” the target instead of hunting,
- Near-dead silence in moving the elements back and forth for focusing,
- The ability to do Full Time Manual (FTM) focusing even when in autofocus mode.
I used a few different Nikkor lenses on both the F70 and F100 to compare to the two USM lenses for the Elan II. I had the Nikkor 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 and 80-200mm f2.8 to compare with the Canon EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 and I used the Nikkor 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 and 35-70mm f2.8 to compare with Canon EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5. I used the 80-200mm lenses for most of my autofocus tests and chose near and far focus points to rack the lenses back and forth.
- F70, generally speaking, is a whiny camera and its focusing motor and/or software is obviously not a robust design because of the amount of whirring heard when focusing any of the lenses. The big 80-200mm f2.8 lens was a challenge for the F70 but with this version of the lens it did seem to fare much better than what my recollection of its prowess was with the old one-touch version. The F70 did a bit better with the much smaller and lighter consumer 80-200mm lens but still not as good as the Elan with the 70-210mm lens. With the smaller lenses, the F70 fared better and with the 24-120mm lens, it was probably only a step behind the Elan with the 24-85mm lens.
- The F100 is pretty damn fast in focusing any lens I tried and is evidence that screw-drive technology can be competitive if not equal to USM or AF-S lens motors. Minolta in fact brags that the Maxxum 7 with a Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens is the fastest focusing system in 35mm format and as far as I know, Minolta is still using screw-drive technology. I played with Canon’s sexy 70-200mm f2.8 on an Elan 7 in a store and truthfully, I was not blown away by the focusing speed given previously read hype accorded to USM lenses. It may be true that Canon enjoyed unprecedented success with USM focusing speed vis a vis other brands in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s but that is definitely no longer the case.
- The Elan II was not faster than the F100 in focusing but I think it was so close that I will say it is a tie. The Elan II did seem more efficient in focusing than the F100. In terms of locking onto the target and braking focus on the target, the Elan seemed better. The F100’s lens motor seemed so overcharged at times that it would hunt a bit before locking on, as in going past the focus point and then coming back. The F70 was just so pathetic in speed that it did not suffer from hunting with the big 80-200mm f2.8; it just puttered along until the focus point was reached. As mentioned earlier, the Elan with the 24-85mm was more equal but still benefited from superior hunt-free focusing.
Overall the Elan’s autofocus was what I had expected and I was impressed that this mid 1990s body would be the equal to a camera that is newer and much more costly but I suppose I have to keep in mind that it is actually the USM lenses that dictate how fast the focusing will be. USM lenses are not created equally and I would imagine Canon’s L series lenses could be even better than the consumer-level offerings I tried out but probably not too much better given the previously mentioned experience with the 70-200mm f2.8L lens.
The other superior aspect to Canon’s USM technology is the noise level. With the best USM and AF-S lenses, the noise level is almost non-existent. The older USM lenses I tried were damn quiet and by far superior to any of the Nikkor lenses I had on hand. The F100 is a quieter focusing camera than the F70 or F90x but there is still a noticeable whirring noise coming from the elements being driven back and forth.
I could still hear the USM lenses focusing on the Elan II but it was well below the level of anyone whose ear is not within a few feet of the camera could hear. What can I say but silence is golden and I loved this aspect of the Elan’s performance with its companion lenses.
Then there is Full Time Manual focusing. Beautiful! Delightful! USEFUL! The lenses had a very nice feel to them when focusing manually with a very good amount of drag. Many Nikon autofocus lenses are just plain sloppy in comparison when used for manual focusing due to the requirements of the screw-drive system. The only lens I had on hand that is as well damped and as smooth focusing as the Canon lenses was the 80-200mm f2.8. The AF 20mm f2.8D lens is another fine feeling lens for manual focus but the rest could not compare well.
What impresses me about Canon is that almost its whole range of lenses uses USM technology and only a few old and cheap consumer-oriented lenses use the micro-motor. Now from what I know of USM offerings, not all of them are capable of Full Time Manual focusing but all of the lenses I would be interested in owning are and use the latest versions of USMs. Couple that with a number of super fast lenses and you have the best autofocus lens lineup in the world. Advantage Canon.
Some Nikon wags suggest that merely having access to lenses such as the EF 24mm f1.4L, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1L, 85mm f1.2L, and 200mm f1.8L is not really such a big deal due to the exorbitant cost of such lenses. That is missing the point entirely. Yes these lenses are expensive and yes very few people will have a need for such fast lenses in their day to day photography but for some who relish the nature of ambient light street photography or for the working pro who can never get enough speed, the fact that these lenses ARE available and not off in some wet dream future is enough to tilt the balance for a choice of systems. Advantage Canon.
Then there are the Tilt-Shift (TS) lenses. Nikon users have one such lens that is truly TS and incorporates a modern design in the 85mm TS Micro lens. There are otherwise two rather ancient Perspective Control lenses from decades past that are available in 28mm and 35mm focal lengths but only offer vertical shift capability. Canon users have access to three full TS lenses encompassing 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm focal lengths. So valued are such lenses that one big time, big name Nikon pro, John Shaw, bought a EOS 1 body just so he could use these lenses. Advantage Canon.
Canon, 45 – Nikon, Love
There are still some Nikon users out and about with the belief that Nikon is still the end all, be all in Japanese designed and manufactured optics. It reminds me of that news story from a couple of decades ago of some elderly Japanese soldiers found on a tropical island who still believed their country was in a state of war, decades after the actual end of WW II. Nikon glass is excellent but so too are lenses from Canon, Minolta, and Pentax.
If the person states that, he or she prefers Nikon optics over other brands as a personal choice than that is entirely valid but to suggest that Nikon still holds an edge otherwise is not. Too many pros are staking their lively-hood and reputation using brands other than Nikon to provide any merit to Nikon superiority. So, Canon optics are excellent but just as there are dogs in the Nikon lineup so too are there dogs in the Canon lineup and if it were my money, I would save up mightily for the L series lenses or else the very best of the consumer range.
Other Features
When I was checking out the Elan kit I was surprised that my coworker had not taken advantage of Custom Function 4 to move autofocus start from the shutter release button to the AE Lock button. With this option the shutter release becomes the AE lock and I think this one of the best features Canon devised. It is so good Nikon ripped it off and even used the same CF 4 number to designate it.
It is surprising that the Elan II is missing a true Depth of Field Preview button. You either obtain it via the Eye Controlled Focus version of the Elan II in which case you can select Depth of Field Preview by looking at one of the top corners of the viewfinder display. Alternatively, you get it through Custom Function 4 by choosing to keep AF start with the shutter release button but turning the AE Lock into Depth of Field Preview, which negates the major benefit of CF 4. Dumb but Canon addressed the feature by providing a dedicated Depth of Field Preview button on the Elan 7 (I think the A2 suffered from this same problem but the EOS 3 has a dedicated DOF preview button).
The Elan II is also missing a PC Sync socket but this is not such a big loss despite the fact that even entry-level bodies from the 1970s included it. The F70 does not have one either but this can be remedied with a $15 accessory available at any photo store. It is now expected that mid-level bodies such as the Elan series will not have a PC Sync socket.
The Elan does have provision for a low cost cordless remote shutter release. Excellent and Canon even makes it convenient for the user to have it with the camera all the time by making a base plate for the remote that fits onto a Canon camera strap. The Canon camera strap also acts as a viewfinder blind since the Elan II does not have a viewfinder shutter to block stray light from entering into the viewfinder and possibly throwing the exposure off. Small but thoughtful decisions by Canon to ensure that these little things won’t get lost in the field or hidden away in the darkest recesses of your camera bag.
One of the nicest features the Elan II has over the F70 and even the F100 is mirror pre-release. It behooves me that Nikon continues to deny a mirror lock up feature to its users unless they buy the still atrociously expensive F5. I am not asking for the full blown mechanical mirror-lockup of the F5 but just the electronic version of such a feature that is either a standalone button or tied into the self-timer. This feature may not actually be that useful (recent testing by myself using the Elan's Mirror Pre Release feature) unless you have a monster telephoto lens shooting at very slow speeds but it would still be nice to have.
This is Custom Function 5 on the Elan II and by enabling this CF the user has the benefit of having the self timer lock up the mirror two seconds before the shutter is released. This feature even works with the cordless remote. Why Nikon, oh why canst thou giveth of such a worthy benefit for thine users. Canon can provide this in a $700 CAN body but Nikon will not even think of it in a $2000 CAN F100 body let alone their $700 F80. Dumb and dumber Nikon.
The Elan has exposure compensation for plus or minus two stops, which is quite adequate but falls well short of the F70’s astonishing plus or minus five stops. Yes, you read that correctly, plus or minus FIVE stops and you adjust in 1/3-stop increments. This is overkill as it is far beyond the range of any slide film and probably most negative films too. Even my F100 does not offer five stops over and under but only three stops over and under and only if you have the camera set to ½ stop intervals instead of the more anal 1/3 stop increments (otherwise you only see a plus or minus two stop range). Of course, you will not see more than a plus or minus one stop range in the F70’s viewfinder so it is not as convenient to use and see how the metering differs. The Elan II offers the full plus or minus two stops range in its viewfinder but only in ½ stop increments. Half stop increments may not satisfy the anal film-bracketing fiend but for most amateurs it is probably quite adequate.
Eye control focus (ECF) is probably the most controversial of all the Canon innovations to have been introduced. While the benefits and efficacy of USM and IS are clear and obvious ECF is not. Many use it, love it, and have no problems but an equal number hate it because ECF does not work with their eyes.
ECF is intriguing and it is too bad that Canon has not been able to make it more reliable. I probably would not be able to make use of it because my left eye (the dominant one) is hardly perfect and my right eye is useless, hence the dominant left eye. ECF devotees simply state, "Turn it off" if you do not like it but that is a bit of bum's rash to have to pay for something you would not use (assumption being that I would want at least an EOS 3 which does not give you a choice of a non-ECF version).
There has obviously been enough negative commentary to ECF that Canon still eschews it for their top-level camera bodies of the EOS 1n and EOS 1v. My coworker did not think that ECF was a big enough deal to spend an extra $100 for the Élan IIe. Another acquaintance of mine who bought the Élan II was also not impressed enough to spend the money for the "e" version of the body. A friend of mine who uses Pentax equipment tried the A2E first before returning it and did not have success with ECF but he wears glasses and ECF in the A2E was the first generation version. This not passing judgment on ECF as I have not tried so I cannot comment objectively on it, I simply pass on choices made by others I know.
The Lenses
The EOS Elan II and Elan IIe can use all EF lenses including the EF 40mm F2.8 STM with all functions working normally.
The EOS Elan II and Elan IIe can use all EF lenses including the EF 40mm F2.8 STM with all functions working normally.
These are the most important items to consider in a camera system and I have already mentioned the advantages to Canon’s lens lineup and the technology utilized in them. I have not even mentioned Image Stabilization yet but more on that later.
The EF 24-85mm and EF 70-210mm are not Canon’s best but can be considered solid middle rank offerings. Both are very much plastic in construction but it is well done and they feel solid. I would say that they are equal to the Nikkor 24-120mm lens whereas the Nikkor 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 is almost obscene in its crappy construction quality and perhaps only by virtue of its optical quality (decent) can it be called a “Nikkor”.
The quality of the Canon lenses are…well, I couldn’t tell shots taken with the Canon lenses to those taken with the Nikon lenses. There was no meaningful difference to my eyes. In fact there was a greater difference between my Tamron 20-40mm lens and the Nikkor lenses than between the Canon and Nikkor lenses. For all that I could see the Canon and Nikon lenses could have come from the same factory. It was unfortunate that I did not have a clear blue-sky day to shoot with as I find clear blue skies to be very good at revealing differences in the colorcast of lenses.
Image Stabilization is the current big thing in lens technology and like USM; many photographers would love to have it. Right now, it is found in Canon's fixed telephoto or telephoto zoom lenses and one wide to moderate telephoto zoom lens (28-135mm). Nikon finally entered into the fray with the 80-400mm VR lens which does not have an lens motor but Canon's 100-400 IS does and this brings up the question of whether or not Nikon is up to incorporating both VR and AF-S in the same lens.
There was a lot of noise generated when Canon dropped the old FD lens mount in favor of the EF mount and EOS system. Nikon took advantage of the changeover by marketing their commitment to the now ancient F mount but in reality, Canon seems to have gotten the last laugh.
Yes, it was a painful transition to the EF mount but the advantages have been very useful for EOS users. The larger EF mount allows for greater latitude for Canon engineers to develop USM and marry it to IS. Yes, sharp images of birds and other wildlife have been taken in days past without the new-fangled technology but if you are a working pro whose bread and butter is nature photography, I think a long hard look at the Canon telephoto lenses are warranted.
Would Moose Peterson love to have VR and AF-S in his monster 600mm f4 and 400mm f2.8 lenses? It is presumptuous to say so but I think he damn well would and so would many other Nikon users. However, Nikon users could be waiting a long time for a VR capable AF-S lens because the small physical size of the F mount may not permit any further advancement. I hope I am wrong in this regard but I am not hopeful. Nikon apparently states that to incorporate VR and AF-S in the 80-400mm lens would have priced it beyond the intended target. Given that Canon did it with their 100-400mm lens for only a few hundred more than what Nikon sells the 80-400mm for, I find it hard to believe (nowadays the 100-400mm USM IS lens could be even cheaper than the 80-400mm VR lens).
Image Stabilization would be wonderful for all lenses including wide-angle focal lengths. Many people are pushing the boundaries with Canon's IS telephoto lenses and I can imagine that fast IS wide-angles would probably cause more than a few Leica users to wet their pants. If Nikon wanted to trump Canon, they should put VR into all of their better lenses except for their consumer G series. A 17-35mm f2.8 VR lens would be killer for ambient light photography. I think Canon is much closer to this dream of mine though as Canon is readying a 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for release later this fall, in time for trials before the Winter Olympics. How soon can it be before Canon does the logical and offer IS in their other L series zooms?
Side by side, the Canon EF mount is clearly larger than the Nikon F mount and provides Canon engineers greater latitude for developing and including new innovations such as USM and IS togethe as well as super fast lenses.
General Use
Now that I have all the Elan specific comments out of the way, how was the kit as a system? Very good impressions of use and handling came of just using the Elan II as a tool and not for some anal-retentive analysis.
On an overall basis, I still prefer the layout of the F100's controls than the Elan's but I really loved the seductive qualities of Canon’s USM lenses. It was an enjoyable experience walking around with the Elan II in hand and focusing with little more than a whisper emanating from the USM lenses when focusing. I could learn to live with such lenses very easily.
Yes, I know Nikon has had some AF-S lenses in its lineup for a few years but the cost is quite prohibitive at the moment for me and Nikon has taken a stance that it will not offer AF-S in any but the best Nikkor lenses. Not exactly sharing the wealth among the proletariat that Canon has done.
For a mid level kit, I could be pretty happy with an Elan 7 with the 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 USM, the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 USM IS, and the 70-300mm f4-5.6 USM IS lenses. It wouldn’t be cheap as such a kit would be around $3000 CAN but personally I would rather have this kit than Nikon’s F80 with a similar compliment of Nikkor lenses. Ultimately, I would not be satisfied with just an Elan 7 but would definitely stretch for an EOS 3 or best of all the EOS 1v with a full compliment of L series lenses. Perhaps if the tech stocks ever reach the lofty heights of 2000 again.
Given how much I like my F100 (despite some idiotic choices by Nikon in parts and the avoidance of certain beneficial features) I should probably just save up for some AF-S lenses and forget the “grass is greener” on the USM side of the road. Just that I would like to be able enjoy IS or VR lenses in something remotely affordable AND benefit from USM or AF-S technology too. Not exactly much choice at this point in time.
Am I complaining about matters that make photography more convenient but will not necessarily make me a better photographer? Perhaps but when deciding upon a significant investment such as a full camera kit, a long hard look at the overall system is key to deciding if brand C is better than brand N. Nikon has a fine system and the company has done much in recent years to lessen the criticism of its users and to stem the fierce competition from Canon for the professional and serious amateur market but it still has a ways to go. Canon still has the overall superior system and the availability of so many fine USM and IS lenses is the key.
A photo system is a personal choice and the user has to be comfortable with the system to obtain maximum benefit. Some users will blanch at the thought of picking up a modern day computerized and plasticized cameras, opting for brick outhouse camera bodies of the “good old days” and metal barreled lenses. Others have no qualms with modern day technology and conveniences but will choose one brand over another for personal reasons such as how the camera feels in the hands or from influences by admired photographers or friends and relatives. All are valid and to quote Fleetwood Mac, “You can go your own way.”
No system is perfect. A quick visit to some news groups or mailing lists about various brands will bring out the weaknesses inherent in all brands. Do your research. Do not take my word for it but experience the products yourself and find the right system for you. What works for me may not work for you. I wrote a Nikon versus Canon piece back in 1999 when I had some biases floating around in my head and I made assumptions because I had no experience with Canon products. A Canon user excoriated me for my comments and assumptions (but he also got personal which crossed the line of acceptable debate and clarification) but now I do have some experience with Canon products. Most of my original comments stand because just as I praise Nikon for some things, I criticize them for others, it also applies to Canon.
Philip Greenspun of Photonet writes about truths in his book about the Internet. You have singular truths and multiple truths. My Camera Hobby web site is predominantly a singular truth of my experiences with the equipment. A discussion forum or mailing list as well as other web sites represent multiple truths that people should expose themselves to in order to obtain as much feedback as possible for an informed decision. However, as much as possible the potential buyer must create a singular truth of his or her own experiences and go with what is best for them.
The Élan II and its successor Elan 7 is not quite my cup of tea but the brief experience with the Elan II kit did reinforce in my mind what an outstanding and user-friendly overall system Canon has developed. Too bad I am not much in favor of 35mm as a format these days unless ultra wide perspectives or long lenses are required. I do most of my serious photography with my Bronica SQ-Ai kit due to the limitations of my digital darkroom with 35mm film.
The EF 24-85mm and EF 70-210mm are not Canon’s best but can be considered solid middle rank offerings. Both are very much plastic in construction but it is well done and they feel solid. I would say that they are equal to the Nikkor 24-120mm lens whereas the Nikkor 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 is almost obscene in its crappy construction quality and perhaps only by virtue of its optical quality (decent) can it be called a “Nikkor”.
The quality of the Canon lenses are…well, I couldn’t tell shots taken with the Canon lenses to those taken with the Nikon lenses. There was no meaningful difference to my eyes. In fact there was a greater difference between my Tamron 20-40mm lens and the Nikkor lenses than between the Canon and Nikkor lenses. For all that I could see the Canon and Nikon lenses could have come from the same factory. It was unfortunate that I did not have a clear blue-sky day to shoot with as I find clear blue skies to be very good at revealing differences in the colorcast of lenses.
Image Stabilization is the current big thing in lens technology and like USM; many photographers would love to have it. Right now, it is found in Canon's fixed telephoto or telephoto zoom lenses and one wide to moderate telephoto zoom lens (28-135mm). Nikon finally entered into the fray with the 80-400mm VR lens which does not have an lens motor but Canon's 100-400 IS does and this brings up the question of whether or not Nikon is up to incorporating both VR and AF-S in the same lens.
 |
| Nikon Lenses can be mounted |
There was a lot of noise generated when Canon dropped the old FD lens mount in favor of the EF mount and EOS system. Nikon took advantage of the changeover by marketing their commitment to the now ancient F mount but in reality, Canon seems to have gotten the last laugh.
Yes, it was a painful transition to the EF mount but the advantages have been very useful for EOS users. The larger EF mount allows for greater latitude for Canon engineers to develop USM and marry it to IS. Yes, sharp images of birds and other wildlife have been taken in days past without the new-fangled technology but if you are a working pro whose bread and butter is nature photography, I think a long hard look at the Canon telephoto lenses are warranted.
Would Moose Peterson love to have VR and AF-S in his monster 600mm f4 and 400mm f2.8 lenses? It is presumptuous to say so but I think he damn well would and so would many other Nikon users. However, Nikon users could be waiting a long time for a VR capable AF-S lens because the small physical size of the F mount may not permit any further advancement. I hope I am wrong in this regard but I am not hopeful. Nikon apparently states that to incorporate VR and AF-S in the 80-400mm lens would have priced it beyond the intended target. Given that Canon did it with their 100-400mm lens for only a few hundred more than what Nikon sells the 80-400mm for, I find it hard to believe (nowadays the 100-400mm USM IS lens could be even cheaper than the 80-400mm VR lens).
Image Stabilization would be wonderful for all lenses including wide-angle focal lengths. Many people are pushing the boundaries with Canon's IS telephoto lenses and I can imagine that fast IS wide-angles would probably cause more than a few Leica users to wet their pants. If Nikon wanted to trump Canon, they should put VR into all of their better lenses except for their consumer G series. A 17-35mm f2.8 VR lens would be killer for ambient light photography. I think Canon is much closer to this dream of mine though as Canon is readying a 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens for release later this fall, in time for trials before the Winter Olympics. How soon can it be before Canon does the logical and offer IS in their other L series zooms?
Side by side, the Canon EF mount is clearly larger than the Nikon F mount and provides Canon engineers greater latitude for developing and including new innovations such as USM and IS togethe as well as super fast lenses.
General Use
Now that I have all the Elan specific comments out of the way, how was the kit as a system? Very good impressions of use and handling came of just using the Elan II as a tool and not for some anal-retentive analysis.
On an overall basis, I still prefer the layout of the F100's controls than the Elan's but I really loved the seductive qualities of Canon’s USM lenses. It was an enjoyable experience walking around with the Elan II in hand and focusing with little more than a whisper emanating from the USM lenses when focusing. I could learn to live with such lenses very easily.
Yes, I know Nikon has had some AF-S lenses in its lineup for a few years but the cost is quite prohibitive at the moment for me and Nikon has taken a stance that it will not offer AF-S in any but the best Nikkor lenses. Not exactly sharing the wealth among the proletariat that Canon has done.
For a mid level kit, I could be pretty happy with an Elan 7 with the 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 USM, the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 USM IS, and the 70-300mm f4-5.6 USM IS lenses. It wouldn’t be cheap as such a kit would be around $3000 CAN but personally I would rather have this kit than Nikon’s F80 with a similar compliment of Nikkor lenses. Ultimately, I would not be satisfied with just an Elan 7 but would definitely stretch for an EOS 3 or best of all the EOS 1v with a full compliment of L series lenses. Perhaps if the tech stocks ever reach the lofty heights of 2000 again.
Given how much I like my F100 (despite some idiotic choices by Nikon in parts and the avoidance of certain beneficial features) I should probably just save up for some AF-S lenses and forget the “grass is greener” on the USM side of the road. Just that I would like to be able enjoy IS or VR lenses in something remotely affordable AND benefit from USM or AF-S technology too. Not exactly much choice at this point in time.
Am I complaining about matters that make photography more convenient but will not necessarily make me a better photographer? Perhaps but when deciding upon a significant investment such as a full camera kit, a long hard look at the overall system is key to deciding if brand C is better than brand N. Nikon has a fine system and the company has done much in recent years to lessen the criticism of its users and to stem the fierce competition from Canon for the professional and serious amateur market but it still has a ways to go. Canon still has the overall superior system and the availability of so many fine USM and IS lenses is the key.
A photo system is a personal choice and the user has to be comfortable with the system to obtain maximum benefit. Some users will blanch at the thought of picking up a modern day computerized and plasticized cameras, opting for brick outhouse camera bodies of the “good old days” and metal barreled lenses. Others have no qualms with modern day technology and conveniences but will choose one brand over another for personal reasons such as how the camera feels in the hands or from influences by admired photographers or friends and relatives. All are valid and to quote Fleetwood Mac, “You can go your own way.”
No system is perfect. A quick visit to some news groups or mailing lists about various brands will bring out the weaknesses inherent in all brands. Do your research. Do not take my word for it but experience the products yourself and find the right system for you. What works for me may not work for you. I wrote a Nikon versus Canon piece back in 1999 when I had some biases floating around in my head and I made assumptions because I had no experience with Canon products. A Canon user excoriated me for my comments and assumptions (but he also got personal which crossed the line of acceptable debate and clarification) but now I do have some experience with Canon products. Most of my original comments stand because just as I praise Nikon for some things, I criticize them for others, it also applies to Canon.
Philip Greenspun of Photonet writes about truths in his book about the Internet. You have singular truths and multiple truths. My Camera Hobby web site is predominantly a singular truth of my experiences with the equipment. A discussion forum or mailing list as well as other web sites represent multiple truths that people should expose themselves to in order to obtain as much feedback as possible for an informed decision. However, as much as possible the potential buyer must create a singular truth of his or her own experiences and go with what is best for them.
The Élan II and its successor Elan 7 is not quite my cup of tea but the brief experience with the Elan II kit did reinforce in my mind what an outstanding and user-friendly overall system Canon has developed. Too bad I am not much in favor of 35mm as a format these days unless ultra wide perspectives or long lenses are required. I do most of my serious photography with my Bronica SQ-Ai kit due to the limitations of my digital darkroom with 35mm film.
- Most Liked - Quiet and hunt-free autofocus performance
- Least Liked - Plastic build of body but especially the BP 50
- Over all - A fine mid-level camera system and fully deserving of all its "overall" praise when compared to the Nikon F70
Thank you for such a great blog.......& Shopping Online at best price from Online Electronics Shopping Site In India
ReplyDeleteThank you because you have been willing to share information with us. we will always appreciate all you have done here because I know you are very concerned with our. cartucce canon
ReplyDelete