General Canon EOS camera questions

I’ve heard that Canon bodies are easily broken, since they’re made of plastic and not metal.

Nonsense. Canon EOS bodies are indeed mostly made of plastic, except for the largely-metal EOS 1 series of professional cameras and the more recent one and two-digit digital EOS cameras. But EOS cameras have been in production since 1987 and it’s pretty clear that the plastics used in other models are quite tough and sturdy. The midrange cameras, for instance, typically use fibreglass-reinforced polycarbonate and ABS plastics for various shell components.

In fact, quality plastic shells are superior to thin metal in some cases - plastic is slightly resilient and can bend slightly to absorb a blow whereas thin metal can dent or deform badly, damaging internal components. (thick metal like the alloys used in high-end cameras are tougher than either, though) Plastic is also much lighter, which makes hiking around with a lot of gear more comfortable, and since it doesn’t transmit heat as easily as metal, can be more comfortable to hold in colder weather.

Now, it’s true that lightweight plastic cameras do feel less impressive to hold and heft. If that’s important to you then, yes, low to midrange EOS cameras are not for you.

Does the lens mount material - plastic or metal - make a difference?

Low-end Canon EOS film cameras built since the early 90s have used lens mounts made of polycarbonate plastic. (the EOS Rebel Ti/300V/Kiss 5 being the sole exception) All other EOS cameras, including all affordable EOS digital cameras to date, use lens mounts made of metal.

The main advantages of the plastic mounts are that they’re very lightweight and cheap to manufacture. Polycarbonate plastic is pretty tough, and although you could probably break such a lens mount if you really tried, most people don’t have a problem. Besides, if your camera took a blow h4 enough to crack the lens mount you’d probably have other problems with it too.

The main advantages of metal mounts are that they have superior resistance to abrasion and they look posher. So if you hardly ever change lenses then plastic is probably just fine. But if you frequently change lenses you’ll probably want a metal mount, since it won’t wear down as quickly. A heavily worn lens mount could, in theory, fit much more loosely.

Besides, most non-pro EOS cameras contain plastic frames regardless of their lens mounts. A metal lens mount screwed to a plastic frame isn’t going to be much tougher than a plastic lens mount screwed to a plastic frame.

How can I tell what market segment a camera is aimed at?

Look at the advertising. If the camera brochure features lots of snapshot photos of happy families on holiday, it’s a low-end or consumer camera. If the brochure features lots of photos of attractive young women smiling coyly at the camera, it’s a midrange camera. And if the brochure features more glossy fashion photos, landscapes, etc, then it’s a professional camera.

I have an EOS film camera. Is there any way to turn it into a digital camera?

No, there isn’t. The only way to do so is to sell the film camera and use part of the proceeds to buy a digital camera. The other alternative is to shoot with film as usual and then scan the film into the computer.

This question comes up all the time, but the answer hasn’t changed. There are a number of reasons why.

First, most EOS cameras don’t have removable backs. A few do - the 600 series, the 3, the 1 series - but most have permanently hinged backs, which limits access to the insides.

Second, even if you were to remove the back there isn’t much room inside a film-based 35mm camera. Somehow you’d have a cram an image sensor, batteries, processing chips, storage and so on into a convenient add-on module. Which, given the current state of the art in miniaturization, would be tricky. And then link the thing’s operation to the shutter release and film advance mechanisms of the camera body itself. There was a firm named Silicon Film which announced such a product a while ago, but after years of repeated promises nothing emerged for sale and the company quietly disappeared from sight.

Third, it is true that Kodak have made a number of digital cameras built around film bodies. The DCS series of cameras, for example, were built around heavily modified EOS 1N and similar Nikon cameras. But these modifications were done during the design and manufacturing process - they used most, but not all, of the 1N body components as a basis for the DCS products. And not only were the bodies re-engineered (motor drives left out, etc) but the digital components ended up sticking out the bottom in massive cases. The one exception to this was the DCS 200 back for the Nikon 8008s/F-801s camera, which was a replaceable digital back with a huge digital computer on the bottom. That one sort of worked but wasn’t exactly a bestseller.

Fourth, it’s also true that you can buy add-on digital modules for certain medium format cameras. These exist for all the reasons why a 35mm add-on digital module are impractical. The MF cameras in question are designed with removable backs and film modules from the start, the cameras are quite big so an add-on digital module (particularly one tethered to a personal computer, as many are) isn’t a problem and finally, the modules are aimed at the extremely well-heeled commercial photography and advertising markets which can afford the astoundingly high prices for the devices.

Finally, it’s obviously theoretically possible for a digital add-on device for EOS cameras to be built, but the likelihood of someone building one is low, for economic reasons. Canon aren’t going to do it because they want you to buy brand new digital EOS cameras. Third parties aren’t going to do it because the engineering and development costs would be astronomical, each add-on would have to be tied to specific cameras bodies (thereby limiting the potential market dramatically), the technical difficulties in making such a thing would be significant, and so on.

Is it true that you can’t use Canon film cameras with infrared film?

This is not a question with a yes or no answer. The short answer is that it depends on the specific model you use and the specific type of infrared film.

The medium-length answer is that most Canon EOS film cameras use infrared film-positioning LEDs (lights) as part of the motordrive mechanism, and these LEDs can inadvertently fog Kodak HIE and EIR infrared film. Konica 750 and Ilford SFX films are not affected. Sadly, since HIE and EIR are both discontinued films, this question isn’t really important anymore.

The long answer is that this depends on the specific EOS model in question - please consult my separate article on the topic.

Why do none of the low to mid range EOS cameras have a spotmeter?

Pro EOS cameras are the only models to contain spotmeters, and this is for marketing reasons. Canon have apparently decided that spotmetering capability - metering light over a small area of the image, typically 1-3% - is a good tool to use to get people to buy more expensive cameras. So unfortunately only their professional and semi-professional cameras have true spotmeters; the exception being the advanced amateur digital EOS 30D.

The least expensive of these options is the venerable and now-discontinued EOS 5/A2/A2E. The other cameras with spotmetering - the EOS 3, 1, 1N, 1V, 1D, 1Ds, 1D mark II, 1D mark IIN, 1Ds mark II, 5D - are all pretty costly.

If you can’t afford any of these cameras or don’t like how big and heavy most of them are then you’ll have to make do with the partial metering feature - metering over about 6.5% to 10.5% of the image area, depending on the model - carried by almost all EOS cameras. Or you can acquire a separate handheld spotmeter and use that. Note, however, that partial metering is very much like a fat spot meter - you can use it in a similar fashion in many cases. Also, if you have a zoom lens you could zoom in to your metering point, meter with the partial meter, and then zoom out. The result is that you’ll be metering from a small area, just like a real spot meter.

How old is my camera or lens?

Canon EOS products often have date codes stamped onto them. These alphanumeric codes are separate from the numeric serial number and are usually hidden away somewhere - inside the film chamber of most cameras or on the black light baffle on the underside of many lenses. Not all EOS products have this code (for some reason Canon gear built in Taiwan often lacks date coding) and those that do often have the code printed in shiny black ink that’s hard to read.

The code looks like UG0205, for example. The first letter represents the name of the factory at which the product was made - often O for Oita (cameras) or U for Utsonomiya (lenses). The second letter is the date code, in which A is the year 1986. The next two digits are the month of manufacture, and the last two digits are apparently internal codes meaningful only to Canon. In the UG0205 example, therefore, my lens was built in Utsonomiya in February 1992.

While this date code is entertaining to look up, note that it doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the condition of a given item. An old lens might have sat around on the shelf and be in perfect condition today or a nearly new lens might have been knocked around and abused. The date code won’t help you here.

I’m left-handed, but EOS cameras are all designed for right-handers. Do I have any choices?

Sadly, no. You just have to get used to it.

Canon, like virtually all other camera manufacturers, have never made cameras designed for left-handed users. All the major controls on EOS bodies are located on the right-hand side of the camera, and the viewfinder also assumes you’re right-eyed unless you enjoy jabbing your eye with your thumb. I guess you could use the camera held upside-down if you find the usual orientation to be hard to use, though operating the shutter release with your thumb is a drag. You can buy a crummy left-handed point and shoot if you don’t mind eschewing SLRs. But other than that this problem is unfortunately another example of the tyranny of the majority.