F80 or EOS30?

Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan 7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to work well
for them, however.

Bettet yet ... slow down and manually focus...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan 7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to work well
for them, however.

Bettet yet ... slow down and manually focus...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan 7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to work well
for them, however.

Yes, the usefulness dropp-off after 3 points is really fast. If you
need something tricky to be focused in a particular way, AF will
anyways at best get you into the right region and thats all.


Bettet yet ... slow down and manually focus...

Cheers,
Alan



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Alan Browne wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan 7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to work well
for them, however.

Yes, the usefulness dropp-off after 3 points is really fast. If you
need something tricky to be focused in a particular way, AF will
anyways at best get you into the right region and thats all.


Bettet yet ... slow down and manually focus...

Cheers,
Alan



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Alan Browne wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan 7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to work well
for them, however.

Yes, the usefulness dropp-off after 3 points is really fast. If you
need something tricky to be focused in a particular way, AF will
anyways at best get you into the right region and thats all.


Bettet yet ... slow down and manually focus...

Cheers,
Alan



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus
points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose
on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan
7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to
work well
for them, however.

Yes, the usefulness dropp-off after 3 points is really fast. If you
need something tricky to be focused in a particular way, AF will
anyways at best get you into the right region and thats all.


Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

I always found the 5 points on my A2 and 1n preferable to the 3 of my D30
and my wife's Élan II, but that was because the end points had more spread
with 5 than 3. I find the 9 of the 20D fairly useless, I've only used the
end ones and the center one. The end ones have pretty much the same spacing
as the end ones on my A2 and 1n.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In practice one almost never has trouble because of "missing" focus
points...

Agree. One is enough, 3 is managable, more is a distraction. I suppose
on
cameras where there is eye driven focus that it can be more useful (Elan
7e, for
example) ... some people report that eye drive focus does not seem to
work well
for them, however.

Yes, the usefulness dropp-off after 3 points is really fast. If you
need something tricky to be focused in a particular way, AF will
anyways at best get you into the right region and thats all.


Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

I always found the 5 points on my A2 and 1n preferable to the 3 of my D30
and my wife's Élan II, but that was because the end points had more spread
with 5 than 3. I find the 9 of the 20D fairly useless, I've only used the
end ones and the center one. The end ones have pretty much the same spacing
as the end ones on my A2 and 1n.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Bruce Graham wrote in
. au:

Other wise I agree with Michael except that
the choice between Canon and Nikon should be made as a choice between
systems, not just between these two bodies.

I strongly disagree with this, which is IMO bad advice. It is much more
important to find a camera that fits the photographer than looking at what
exotic teles are available when choosing a camera. Fact is, all the four
major japanese systems, and some of the other systems as well, does
everything 99% of all photographers want.

For the original poster's question, I would say that the F80 is the nicer
of those two bodies (better interface, spot meter, built-in grid screen),
but that is my taste speaking. it's a very well-rounded camera. The lack of
a vertical grip is a minus but then again the Canon one isn't very good.
Finally, the best camera in this class is the Minolta Dynax 7. All IMO of
course.

Bruce Graham wrote in
. au:

Other wise I agree with Michael except that
the choice between Canon and Nikon should be made as a choice between
systems, not just between these two bodies.

I strongly disagree with this, which is IMO bad advice. It is much more
important to find a camera that fits the photographer than looking at what
exotic teles are available when choosing a camera. Fact is, all the four
major japanese systems, and some of the other systems as well, does
everything 99% of all photographers want.

For the original poster's question, I would say that the F80 is the nicer
of those two bodies (better interface, spot meter, built-in grid screen),
but that is my taste speaking. it's a very well-rounded camera. The lack of
a vertical grip is a minus but then again the Canon one isn't very good.
Finally, the best camera in this class is the Minolta Dynax 7. All IMO of
course.

"Dps" servis*REMOVE wrote in message
...
I would like to ask about experience with the F80 and eos 30 biodies. Did
anyone ever used both? Are there any comparisons?

Thanks a lot!!





I made the choice between these two recently. I was sure both would be great
cameras for me. I went to a local store and 'had a hold' of both - I
preferred the Nikon - but I'm sure it's entirely an individual thing.

In the end I bought the F80, mainly because I found an excellent bargain
package of a body with a 28-105 lens (rather than the standard 28-100). I
love this camera, I'm sure I would have been equally pleased with the Canon.
However two of the features I _really_ like are the viewfinder gridlines and
the spot metering, I have used these far more than I thought I would, in
fact by default I have the grid lines on all the time. Most of all I'm
enjoying using a camera that will perform beyond the bounds of my talent for
quite some time to come :-)

Enjoy your purchase, whatever you choose.


--
Cheers

Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash